University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Organizational resistance toward chief diversity officers: a qualitative study of small liberal arts colleges

(USC Thesis Other)

Organizational resistance toward chief diversity officers: a qualitative study of small liberal arts colleges

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Organizational Resistance Toward Chief Diversity Officers:
A Qualitative Study of Small Liberal Arts Colleges

by

Jennifer Luanna Sacro Wells

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2021

© Copyright by Jennifer Luanna Sacro Wells 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jennifer Luanna Sacro Wells certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Adrianna Kezar
Tracy Poon Tambascia
Eric Canny, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
The present study seeks to address the problem of organizational resistance against Chief
Diversity Officers in higher education in the United States. This study focuses specifically the
role and profession of Chief Diversity Officer in the United States within small liberal arts
colleges. The study addresses three research questions. What is the nature of the transformational
organizational elements that influence the CDO’s ability to impact institutional change? What is
the nature of the transactional organizational elements that influence the CDO’s ability to impact
institutional change? What individual skills, knowledge, and values facilitate the CDO’s ability
to impact institutional change. I interviewed 10 Chief Diversity Officers from small liberal arts
colleges to collect the lived experiences of these college officers. Key findings demonstrated that
CDOs are influenced by the transformational organizational elements of strategic diversity
planning and significant support and competency from the college president; the transactional
organizational influences of the CDO reporting to the President of the college, serving on the
senior leadership team, and possessing a Portfolio-Divisional model of staffing; and individual
influences of the lack of diversity, equity, and inclusion-related knowledge and skills and
devaluing of the CDO role. Key recommendations included support for DEI capacity building at
the Presidential and VP level; restructuring the CDO portfolio to include a Vice President’s title,
reporting to the President, and a multi-department division supporting the diversity agenda; and
supporting the knowledge development for faculty and staff in support of the college’s
commitment to the diversity agenda.

v
Acknowledgements
This study would not have been possible without the expertise, support, sacrifice, and
love from my personal and academic villages. In the midst of a global pandemic and global
reckoning for racial justice, the following people have truly helped me push forward despite
many challenges.
I would like to thank the phenomenal Chief Diversity Officers who participated in my
study. Thank you for trusting me with your narratives. I hope your stories can make a difference
for all doing the work of diversity, equity, inclusion, and liberation in higher education.
I also have deep gratitude for my stellar dissertation committee. Thank you Dr. Kezar and
Dr. Tambascia for your expertise and thought-provoking questions that pushed me further
towards the research I aimed to produce. Thank you to my chair, Dr. Canny, for our candid
conversations, for helping me work through the speed bumps, and for holding space for me as
Black-Filipinx doctoral student surviving an era of racial violence and a pandemic that is
disproportionately impacting BIPOC communities. I am so proud of the study that I conducted
because of what all three of you offered throughout this experience.
Thank you to Dr. Malloy, Dr. Grant, and Dr. Regur. Not only was I blessed to have each
of you as impactful instructors, but your approach to academia has also profoundly shaped my
own academic journey. I am so grateful for your support throughout this program. Thank you
specifically to Dr. Regur for your support in reviewing my dissertation. Thank you also to
Leivera Fonoti and Sara Seiberling. I appreciate your support along this journey, through the
laughter and the tears.
I would also like to thank my professional supervisors during my doctoral program:
Charlotte Johnson, JD and Dr. Priscilla Sands. Thank you both for your encouragement as I

vi
navigated my academic endeavors while working full time at Scripps College and the
Marlborough School. Thank you for the many ways your support made this study possible.
To the phenomenal women of color I have met and learned from in the OCL program,
especially Chinako Belanger and Jennifer Zuchowski: I am humbled to have witnessed all of you
claiming your stories and narratives in our program and in your research. Words cannot begin to
capture the need for our voices, perspectives, and wisdom in field of organizational change and
leadership, and I am so honored to have learned alongside you.
Laura Cardinal, my dear sister-scholar-friend, I could not have finished this program
without you. Thank you for the constant check-in texts, the Pomodoro sessions, the virtual
shoulder to cry on, and your allyship throughout this program. I am so so very honored to know
you and call you my friend.
Thank you to my recommenders, Dr. Gretchen Edwalds-Gilbert, Dr. Steven Hubbard,
and Dr. Dave Donahue. Thank you for witnessing my professional and academic preparation for
this doctoral program and for putting your name behind your support for my graduate studies.
Thank you to my amazing former students and current boss Black women leaders--
Jackie Newsome, Rachel Patterson, Cinneah El-Amin, and Sabina Hills-Villalobos. You all have
held me accountable, cheered me on, and you are the reason I do this work.
I want to give a special thank you to all with whom I served on the Inclusive Excellence
Committee at the Claremont Colleges and the Division of Student Life Ambassadors
professional staff team at Mills College; and Amy Zavadil, Ana Angeles, Alicia Lawrence (Rest
in Power), and Mayowa Obasaju from my work at Barnard College. Each of you have a had a
deeply meaningful impact on my practice and pedagogy, and this study is a love letter to the
work you all do on a daily basis.

vii
I would be remiss to not thank the community of scholars and professionals who
supported me from the conception of this dissertation all the way through to the very end. Thank
you to Dr. David Pe, Dr. Leslie Hughes, Dr. Steven Jubert, Dr. Erica Little, Laura Igram, Dr.
Sabrina Kwist, Dr. Adriana di Bartolo, Charlene Martinez, Dr. Junelyn Peeples, Cecil Barnes,
Addae Jahdai-Brown, Drs. Lisa and Richard Orbe-Austin, and Lindsay Scales.
To my “Write About Now” group, I am so grateful for a safe space as a Black
professional and scholar to dream big, do great things, and support each other through all of it.
Our writing sessions were crucial to the completion of this study. Leslie Schnyder and
Christopher Dennis: thank you both for your immense belief in me and for sharing your own
journeys with me. Thank you for exemplifying collaborative, equity-minded practice, and ride-
and-thrive friendship.
Tera Nakata, Dr. Marissiko Wheaton, Paulina Abaunza, Nick Daily, Lydia Middleton,
Pharalyn Crozier, Dr. Sabrina Kwist, Lauren Bartlett, and Sabrina Hamilton: words cannot
express the profound impact you have had on my personal and professional journey since I’ve
met each of you. Thank you for being my chosen family and for modeling what liberatory
practice can be in education and what unconditional love can look like in our daily lives.
My dear family -- Papa, Mama, Jamie, Kuya, Devynn, Jayden, and Royce – I know how
much sacrifice has been made so that I could complete this doctorate and dissertation. You all
inspire me every single day to make the world a better place. Thank you for being my confidants,
my sounding boards, my benefactors, my conscience, and my heart. I love you all so very much.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. xi
Chapter One: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
Field Context ....................................................................................................................... 2
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................. 3
Importance of Addressing the Problem ............................................................................... 7
Field Goal and Field Performance Goal .............................................................................. 7
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................... 8
Stakeholder Group of Focus .............................................................................................. 10
Purpose Statement and Guiding Questions ....................................................................... 10
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework ........................................................................... 11
Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 12
Organization of the Study .................................................................................................. 13
Chapter Two: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 14
Diversity in Higher Education ........................................................................................... 14
Institutionalizing a Diversity Agenda in Higher Education .............................................. 25
The Chief Diversity Officer ............................................................................................... 39
The Burke-Litwin Organizational Change Framework ..................................................... 54
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 69
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 71
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................... 71
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 71

ix
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 72
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................. 73
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale ...................................................................... 73
Data Collection and Instrumentation ................................................................................. 74
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 76
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 77
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 77
Chapter Four: Findings .................................................................................................................. 79
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 79
Research Question 1: What Is the Nature of the Transformational Organizational
Elements that Influence the CDO’s Ability to Impact Institutional Change? ............. 81
Research Question 2: What Is The Nature of the Transactional Organizational
Elements That Influence the CDO’s Ability to Impact Institutional Change? ............ 94
Research Question 3: What Individual Skills, Abilities, Needs, and Values Facilitate the
CDO’s Ability to Impact Institutional Change? ........................................................ 113
Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................... 124
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations ....................................................................... 125
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................... 125
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................ 138
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 153
Implications for Future Research .................................................................................... 154
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 155
References ................................................................................................................................... 158
Appendix A: Standards of Professional Practice for Chief Diversity Officers in Higher
Education 2.0 ............................................................................................................................... 172
Appendix B: Interview Protocol .................................................................................................. 174

x
List of Tables
Table 1 Nine Themes in Racial Campus Climate ......................................................................... 24
Table 2 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity: Core Principles ............................................................ 28
Table 3 Three Models of Organizational Diversity Capabilities in Higher Education ................. 32
Table 4 Inclusive Excellence Change Model ................................................................................ 36
Table 5 Years of Diversity Leadership Experience for Chief Diversity Officers ......................... 41
Table 6 Career Backgrounds for Chief Diversity Officers ............................................................ 42
Table 7 Educational Background for Chief Diversity Officers ..................................................... 42
Table 8 Archetypes of CDO Vertical Structure ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 9 Institutional Change Strategies Applied by Chief Diversity Officers .............................. 52
Table 10 Transformational Influences ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 11 Transactional Influences ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 12 Individual Influences ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 13 Sociodemographic Characteristics of Participants ......................................................... 81
Table 14 CDO Reporting Structure and Vertical Structures ......................................................... 96
Table 15 What Knowledge Collaborators Need to Know ........................................................... 114
Table 16 Workshop Topics or Trainings Provided by CDOs ..................................................... 119
Table 17 Key Influences, Findings, and Recommendations ....................................................... 139

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1 Campus Climate Framework .......................................................................................... 22
Figure 2 The Diversity Planning Crisis Model .............................................................................. 26
Figure 3 Three Dimensional Model of Higher Education Diversity. ............................................ 44
Figure 4 Burke Litwin Organizational Change Model .................................................................. 56
Figure 5 Organizational Resistance for Chief Diversity Officers in Small Liberal Arts Colleges 57
Figure 6 Burke-Litwin Change Management Process: Phases of Change .................................. 146

1

Chapter One: Introduction
This study addresses the problem of organizational resistance toward the Chief Diversity
Officer (CDO) position at U.S. colleges, which limits the CDO’s ability to impact institutional
change. Williams and Wade-Golden (2007) define a CDO as an executive-level administrator
who provides institutional leadership and organization for diversity functions for a college or
university. Wilson’s (2013) study of CDOs demonstrates the importance of the structural
location of their position in determining the scope of their power to enforce policy and impact
change. In Wilson’s study (2013), CDOs who do not report to the President of the college and
without reporting personnel were limited in their ability to create change in their institution.
According to a study by Williams and Wade-Golden in 2013, 55% of the sample felt their
positions were provided with the personnel and financial resources to meet the demands of
constructing diversity resources at their college or university.
These structural inefficiencies create the terrain for the success of the CDO, which can be
limited by (a) the scope in reporting structure (Leon, 2014), (b) strained access or relationships
with collaborative institutional partners and other college officers (Nixon, 2017; Wilson, 2013),
and (c) structurally determined limitation of adequate funding for the CDO work (Leon, 2014).
The evidence highlights that as colleges and universities increasingly create CDO positions to
address diversity issues (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013), the high demand upon this position
remains inconsistently matched by structural and financial support for the CDO position (Leon,
2014; Wilson, 2013). Colleges need to address this problem so that CDOs are sufficiently
supported through structures, financial resources, and scope of authority, to ensure that progress
on the college’s institutional diversity agendas is not compromised.

2

Field Context
For this research, this study defines the field context as small liberal arts colleges in the
United States. The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) delineated the
distinction between “liberal arts,” “liberal arts education,” and “liberal arts colleges.” In their
distinction, liberal arts colleges are an institution type that promotes the liberal arts (humanities,
arts, and the natural and social sciences) through its curriculum (AACU, n.d.). Steven and
Stephen (2000) also identify small liberal arts colleges as institutions serving students between
the ages of 18 and 21 who are seeking Bachelor of Arts degrees characterized by a breadth of
academic study. Additionally, The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education
(2017) characterizes “small” institutions as those with 1,000 to 2,999 students for four-year
institutions. Pifer et al. (2015) identified liberal arts education as a prestigious model for the
delivery of an undergraduate degree. Other characteristics of a liberal arts college include a focus
on the arts and sciences, class relationships between faculty and students, and a mostly, if not all,
residential student body (Umbach & Kuh, 2006).
Additionally, small liberal arts colleges have traditionally been champions of citizenship,
social responsibility, and community through the colleges’ educational offerings (Lang, 1999).
According to Warshaw and Ciamrimboli (2020) known for their shared governance model, small
liberal arts colleges are also the site for increasing fracture between faculty and staff and poor
structural recourse to promote innovative change. This dynamic between structure and change is
also reiterated by Baker and Baldwin (2014), who stated “there is a “curious mixture of traditions
and innovation” (p. 249). Rojas Joo (2018) found that Chief Diversity Officers in liberal arts
colleges play the role of “equity advocator and conveyer” (p. 221), where innovation can occur
more rapidly, and liberal arts college have the potential to be “exemplary role models in
3

practicing diversity and inclusion” (p.221). This notion of “traditions and innovation” can be
applied to the present study’s problem of practice, where the Chief Diversity Officer role
represents an innovation in higher education, however the maintenance of tradition can pose as
organizational resistance in the CDO’s ability to create change.
Background of the Problem
This section will provide the background of the problem. This background includes an
overview of how the CDO positions emerged on college campuses, common organizational
structures for the CDO within the college, and the collaborative nature of the CDO role. Each of
these components of the CDO role can contribute to organizational resistance for the CDO
position.
Creation of the CDO Position
While administrative support for diversity efforts has existed since the 1950s and 1960s
(Williams & Clowney, 2007), CDO positions emerged in the 2010’s as an innovative strategy for
colleges and universities. Colleges have created CDO positions as a means of addressing the
dynamic evolution of diversity on college campuses. In Wilson’s 2013 qualitative study of
CDOs, six of the seven CDOs discussed the creation of their role resulting from a response by
college presidents to meet the unfolding demands of supporting a diverse campus. These
demands often involved responding to campus climate surveys in which campus constituents
shared their experience at the institution related to matters of diversity (Wilson, 2013). Arnold
and Kowalski-Braun (2012) also cite that campus climate surveys and responses to bias incidents
have prompted the creation of this senior leadership position to address campus diversity issues.
Paired with the current climate demands on the CDO role, the evolution of roles related to
college affirmative action and multicultural affairs has contributed to the creation of the CDO.
4

Stuart (2010) described how the interviewed CDOs came into their positions through their
careers in affirmative action or “minority affairs” within higher education. With the creation of
this role stemming from an array of institutional contexts, the specific organizational structures
of the CDO role mirror this variation.
Organizational Structure of the CDO
In higher education, the CDO position varies in how the position is structured, including
the scope of the role, the financial and human resources dedicated specifically to this role, and
the role’s reporting structure. The CDO’s portfolio of work can range in responsibility, authority,
and tasks (Douglas & Little, 2017; Leon, 2014; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007). Williams and
Wade-Golden (2007) describe the CDO’s work as professionalizing and institutionalizing
college diversity efforts through leading the college in strategic planning intended to build
structures and initiatives that support the college’s diversity efforts. The CDO’s diversity efforts
can include leading initiatives intended to recruit and retain students, faculty, and staff from
diverse racial and gender backgrounds and developing instructional policies and structures
promote a campus climate that is free of bias and discrimination.
Given the CDO role’s scope and expectations, another important structural factor of the
CDO position is the executive-level ranking, which may include direct reporting to the college
president or dean of faculty. In a three-site case study of CDOs in higher education, Leon’s
(2014) study demonstrated that while all of the CDOs reported to a college president or provost,
the “executive-level” ranking specifically allowed for the CDOs to better establish institutional
authority and access to key stakeholders with institutional decision-making power. Without the
“executive level” status, the CDO is limited in their access and authority to implement structural
5

change and accountability regarding matters of diversity, equity, and inclusion throughout the
college.
In doing this work, the CDO’s position can range in how the role is structured and
resourced (Gravley-Stack et al., 2016; Leon, 2014; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2008). To
highlight the key differences in most CDO structures, Williams and Wade-Golden (2008) offer
three models for categorizing these roles: Collaborative Officer Model, Unit-based Model, and
Portfolio-Divisional Model. The Collaborative Officer Model often is characterized by a sole
administrator tasked with college diversity functions, sometimes supported by administrative
assistance. The unit-based CDO often has administrative support and direct-reporting staff. The
Portfolio Divisional Model recognizes the additional units within the college charged with the
work of diversity and equity that will report through the CDO. Through the structure of the CDO
position, the college can operationalize its diversity work. Given the variety of organizational
structure of the CDO position, collaboration with other university units and relationship-building
with officials are necessary aspects of the CDO position’s work.
CDO Collaboration and Relationship Building
As the work of the CDO spans the entire college, collaboration and relationship building
play an essential role in the CDO’s ability to create change. Research focusing on the CDO role
highlight the collaborative nature of the CDO position in creating institutional change (Cooper,
2014; Douglas & Little, 2017; Gravley-Stack et al., 2016; Harvey, 2014; Leon, 2014; Nixon,
2017; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007, 2013; Wilson, 2013). Williams and Wade-Golden’s
2013 survey of CDOs best encapsulates the collaborative nature of the role, with 98% of
participants describing the use of “informal networks, campus contacts” and 96% “building
strategic partnerships and alliances” to accomplish their diversity work (p. 85). Further, a quote
6

from one participant in Wilson’s 2013 study describes the necessary nature of collaboration: “I
have to. There is no way that I could do everything that I have to do without collaboration.”
Depending upon the CDO’s access to administrative support, personnel, and authority, the CDO
needs to build connections with others within the college. In Leon’s multi-site case study (2014),
findings highlighted the collaborative nature of the CDO position, specifically in the
Collaborative Officer Model and Unit Base Model in which the CDOs must rely on their
connections with individuals and groups to create institutional change.
However, a CDO’s ability to create these collaborations and connections was informed
by both the CDO’s colleagues’ ability to see the importance of the CDO’s work and potential
prejudice against the CDO’s work. CDOs in Leon’s study (2014) indicated they often needed to
rely on the “goodwill” of their institutional collaborators and their ability to see the CDO’s work
as applicable to the collaborators’ role in the university. Moreover, in Nixon’s 2017 study of
women of color in the CDO position, CDOs experienced isolation and discrimination, with one
CDO stating, “CDO-ing is seen as a colored thing,” resulting in “double-triple marginalization,
by gender, by ethnicity, and by virtue of one’s work” (p. 312). As collaborations are a means of
supplementing a lack of financial and personnel resources, CDOs’ experiences with racial
discrimination and lack understanding or value given to their work from institutional
stakeholders can also exacerbate issues with organizational resistance for CDOs accomplishing
the college’s diversity agenda. To realize the full potential of the CDO’s ability to provide
leadership and progress for a college’s diversity agenda, college leadership need to be willing to
address the structural and collaborative barriers experienced by CDOs.

7

Importance of Addressing the Problem
Evolving from the work of affirmative action, multicultural affairs, and minority affairs
officers (Stuart, 2010), the CDO role is an innovation in higher education, charged with
maintaining and enhancing a college or university's policies, procedures, and practices related to
campus diversity (Douglas & Little, 2017; Gravley-Stack et al., 2016; Leon, 2014; Williams &
Wade-Golden, 2007, 2013; Wilson, 2013). Despite the creation of this role, limitations to
creating institutional change exist for the CDO. CDOs have access to limited financial and
human resources (Gravley-Stack et al., 2016; Leon, 2014; Nixon, 2017). CDOs rely on
collaboration and interpersonal connections to accomplish change (Gravley-Stack et al., 2016;
Harvey, 2014; Leon, 2014; Nixon, 2017; Wilson, 2013; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). CDOs
experience discrimination based on the intersection of one’s role and the nature of the CDO’s
work (Nixon, 2017). Unless college leadership addresses and improves these limitations, this
position which is intended to enhance college effectiveness could instead fall short of supporting
the diversity efforts the CDO was created to shepherd.
Field Goal and Field Performance Goal
This study defines the CDO field goal as creating organizational support with cultural
settings, practices, and organizational structures within small liberal arts colleges to bolster and
support the CDO position in accomplishing the institution’s diversity agenda. This goal is
supported by the on-going performance goal of the CDO profession to continually monitor and
drive change and promote initiatives and strategies within the college to address the needs of the
college’s diverse population. Worthington (2012) cites five factors propelling the
institutionalization of diversity agendas at U.S. colleges and universities: (a) disparities among
different racial, ethnic, and socio-economic groups in educational attainment; (b) legal and
8

governmental regulations to prevent discrimination; (c) producing graduated students that supply
a multiculturally informed workforce; (d) research demonstrating that diversity is a key
component in accomplishing an institution’s educational mission; and (e) increased numbers of
underrepresented groups within higher education. As such, the development of the CDO position
is meant to provide executive-level leadership to driving core diversity functions such as
strategic planning, institutional accountability, recruitment and retention, and intergroup relations
and discourse. These core functions occur throughout the college in the arenas of academic
departments and research, student affairs and engagement, institutional advancement and alumni
relations, and human resources and professional development. The CDO’s work is enmeshed
with the work of stakeholders within small liberal arts colleges.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Chief Diversity Officers are often tasked with working with various stakeholder groups to
accomplish the work of diversity functions within their institution. In Worthington’s 2012
editorial, a three-dimensional model illustrates the interaction of a college’s diversity imperative
core areas with related identity characteristics of the college and the focal groups within the
college. Of these primary focal groups listed by Worthington (2012), this study will focus on
faculty, students, staff and administrators, and the president and senior leadership of the college.
While all stakeholders work directly with the CDO and are part of the CDO’s work as
individuals in the college, each stakeholder group also has a unique function related to or
facilitated through the goals and actions of the CDO.
For faculty, the diversity agenda of an institution usually relates to their role in the
college through diversity in the curriculum and programs of study, the recruitment and retention
of diverse faculty members, mitigating bias and discrimination within the classroom or with
9

students, and the utilization of inclusive pedagogy and accessibility through universal design. A
CDO might play a role in training faculty, providing guidance or consultation, and assisting the
provost or dean of faculty in creating pathways for diversity best practices related to the
college’s academic affairs.
Students are also an important stakeholder group, and often one with great emphasis as it
relates to creating a learning environment free of bias, discrimination, and other barriers to
degree attainment. The CDO might work to increase the accessibility to the college by students
from historically underrepresented backgrounds, assist with designing and implementing
programs and trainings that creates greater knowledge and skills for learning and living with
students from diverse backgrounds, and provide oversight of programs or initiatives aimed to
increase support and retain students from historically marginalized and underrepresented
backgrounds.
Staff and administrators are another stakeholder group that works with the CDO, both in
their job functions and as employees of the college. Staff and administrators may work with the
CDO to determine how their department or unit can incorporate and implement diversity and
equity functions throughout their operations and college programs. Additionally, the CDO may
lead initiatives that promote inclusive and equitable workplace policies and environment,
cultivate the diversity of staff at all levels and divisions of the college, and develop professional
development intended to increase the knowledge and skills that maintain a supportive learning
environment for diverse students.
Two additional stakeholder groups are the President of the college and the senior
leadership team. This study defines the senior leadership team as high-ranking college officials
who report directly to the president of the college. As such, the president and senior leadership
10

team are key decision-makers in the institution, often tasked with allocating resources, driving
and implementing change through their respective divisions, and promoting development and
accountability related to the college’s diversity agenda. As CDOs are also high ranked college
officials, the CDO often works with these leaders to introduce, promote, mitigate, and manage
change related to the college’s diversity agenda.
Stakeholder Group of Focus
While a complete analysis of the problem would include all stakeholders, this study will
focus on the CDOs as a key stakeholder group. As Wilson (2013) found, collaboration with other
stakeholders is an important factor in CDO’s ability to execute diversity functions within the
college. The study centers the perspectives and experiences of the CDO to illuminate the
potential barriers that might interfere with the CDO’s ability to execute the college’s
institutionalized diversity agenda. The professional goals of the CDO position as outlined by the
National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education is directly aligned with and
informs the performance goal of CDOs within their college. The CDOs’ performance goal will
be to engage in strategic planning to identify and activate key organizational structures, policies,
procedures, and organizational partnerships to accomplish the institution’s diversity agenda.
Purpose Statement and Guiding Questions
The purpose of this study is to explore and examine the organizational elements that
influence the CDO’s ability to impact change as defined by the diversity agenda of the college.
Using the literature, this study will explore and examine the organizational elements through
interviews. Though all stakeholders play an important role in the work of the CDO, this study
will focus on CDOs to complete this analysis.
The questions that guide this study are the following:
11

1. What is the nature of the transformational organizational elements that influence the
CDO’s ability to impact institutional change?
2. What is the nature of the transactional organizational elements that influence the CDO’s
ability to impact institutional change?
3. What individual skills, abilities, needs, and values facilitate the CDO’s ability to impact
institutional change?
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
This study will use the Burke-Litwin Model of organizational change (Burke & Litwin,
1992) to examine the cause-effect nature of organizational elements that contribute to individual
organizational performance regarding CDO’s ability to impact institutional change. This study
will focus on three organizational distinctions: transactional, transformational, and individual
organizational elements. The transactional elements are marked by the organizational climate
that is composed of individual, everyday interactions and behaviors. These transactional
elements consist of structure, management practices, systems, work group climate, skills or job
match, individual needs and values, and motivation. In contrast, the transformational elements
focus on “human transformation,” which refers to sudden changes in behavior in the organization
(Olivier, 2017, p. 5). Transformational elements are external environment, mission and strategy,
leadership, and culture. Lastly, the individual elements are comprised of the individual skills,
abilities, needs, and motivation related to organizational performance. Using the literature, this
study explored the transactional, transformational, and individual organizational elements
through interviews with CDOs from small liberal arts colleges and universities. The study
concludes with proposed recommendations based on the study’s findings, using Burke and
Litwin’s (1992) defined organizational elements to categorize the recommendations.
12

Definitions
• Diversity: the extent of representation of marginalized or underrepresented groups along
the lines of race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, religion, gender identity, gender
expression, sexual orientation, ability, and citizenship.
• Chief Diversity Officer: an executive-level officer, often reporting to the president, within
a college or university responsible for oversight and change management for diversity
functions at the college or university.
• Diversity Functions: the strategy, tasks, and management of policies, procedures, and
practices at a college or university directly related to diversity within the college or
university. This can include recruitment and retention of diverse populations, diversity
within the formal and informal curriculum, mitigation of bias and discrimination based
on identity, maintenance of a supportive psychological and behavioral institutional
climate, and promotion of knowledge and learning about diverse groups and cultures.
• Diversity Agenda: the comprehensive and strategic initiatives, policies, procedures, and
practices established by a college or university to support the diversity of its population
• Liberal Arts College: Colleges with programs of study primarily focused on
undergraduate study of liberal arts and sciences
• Organizational Resistance: the tendency for an organization to resist change and uphold
the status quo in the form of policies and procedures or individual reaction to change.
• Transformational Organizational Elements: organizational elements that focus on
“human transformation,” such as external environment, mission and strategy, leadership,
and culture.
13

• Transactional Organizational Elements: organizational elements that are marked by the
organizational climate that is composed of individual, everyday interactions and
behaviors, such as management practices, systems, work group climate, skills or job
match, individual needs and values, and motivation.
• Change Management: the process of managing the technical and adaptive aspects of an
organization in the midst of change
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. This chapter reviewed the problem, the
background of the problem, and key terminology regarding CDOs and the related context of this
higher education position. Chapter One also provided the performance goal of the CDOs was
reviewed, in addition to an overview of key stakeholders and their relationship with the role of
the CDO. Chapter Two provides a review of the existing literature regarding diversity, inclusion,
and equity within higher education; the institutionalization of diversity, inclusion, and equity in
higher education; the development of the CDO role; current models and structures; and an in-
depth overview of the theoretical framework being used to frame the problem. Chapter Three
provides the methodology for the selection of interview participants, data collection, and
analysis. Chapter Four will outline the study’s data and results. Lastly, Chapter Five proposes
recommendations and implementation strategies, as informed by the study’s findings and
existing literature, aimed to address the organizational resistance issues identified by the study.

14

Chapter Two: Literature Review
The problem of practice this literature review will address is the issue of organizational
resistance in supporting the role of the CDO in United States colleges, limiting their ability to
impact institutional change. As the CDO position provides executive-level leadership and direct
or guide the college diversity agenda, organizational support for the CDO role is instrumental in
realizing the promises of this emerging role within the United States higher education. In this
chapter, the literature will be reviewed through the themes of diversity within higher education,
the institutionalization of a diversity agenda, and the complexity of the CDO position. Following
this section, the review will provide an examination of the organizational transformational,
transactional, and individual influences lens used for this study. The review will conclude with
the conceptual framework for this study.
Diversity in Higher Education
This section of the literature review will provide historical context regarding diversity in
higher education. The review will start with the legal context of diversity in higher education,
specifically highlighting the role of legal cases in racially diversifying higher education.
Following the legal context, this section will provide a review of literature related to
demonstrating the educational value of diversity in higher education. This section will close with
literature regarding campus climate and components of campus climate that more negatively
impact students of color.
Legal Cases to Racially Diversify Higher Education
Higher education in the United States have origins in providing education for white,
property-owning men. As decades have passed, colleges and universities have admitted students
across a range of racial, gender, ability, religious, and socio-economic backgrounds. Defining
15

moments in the history diversifying United States colleges and universities are four major
Supreme cases that ruled affirmative action as constitutional in college admissions: Regents of
the University of California v. Bakke (1978), Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), Grutter v. Bollinger
(2003), and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016). Defining the legal parameters of
racial considerations in higher education admissions, these Supreme Court cases are the
foundation of high education’s goal of establishing policies and practices that addressed the
historical exclusion of underrepresented and marginalized racial populations while also minding
the unconstitutional practice of racial discrimination.
Proposed by John F. Kennedy and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed racial segregation and discrimination in the United States.
This landmark piece of legislation during the Civil Rights Movement and as the result of civil
rights activism in the 1960s outlawed racial segregation in businesses and public places and
barred discriminatory practices in employment. Additionally, the Equal Protection Clause under
the Fourteenth Amendment, which took effect in 1868 states, “nor shall any State […] deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Equal Protection Clause
was pivotal in establishing the case against racial segregation in public schools in the Supreme
Court ruling Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
The Supreme Court ruling Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) involved a
35-year-old white man who had applied to the Medical School of the University of California,
Davis, and was denied admissions twice. The Medical School had an admissions policy that
reserved 16 of its 100 seats for “qualified” minority students. This policy was established by the
Medical School to actively addressed the historical legacy of racial exclusion of minorities from
the medical profession. Bakke’s case was that this admissions policy violated the Title VI of the
16

Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The
Supreme Court ruled that, while the use of racial “quotas” was unconstitutional, affirmative
action practices in admissions was constitutional so long as race was considered alongside a
number of other qualifications for admission.
The next landmark Supreme Court cases related to race-based admission in higher
education came in 2003, with Gratz v. Bollinger at the undergraduate level and Grutter v.
Bollinger at the graduate level. In the case of Gratz v. Bollinger, the University of Michigan
Office of Undergraduate Admissions utilized a point system in their admissions process, which
allotted 20 additional points to students of underrepresented minorities. Factors such as high
school grades, standardized test scores, and extracurricular activities were also evaluated. The
Supreme Court ruled that this practice did violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the point system gave an advantage to
almost every minimally qualified racial minority applicant and failed to specifically define its
process’s link to the compelling interest of diversity.
In the case of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), a law school applicant claimed being rejected
from the Law School because the admissions policy used race as a “predominant” element of the
law school’s admissions process. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Law School did
not violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the admissions
policy was specific to individual applications and provided a holistic review of all applicants and
their ability to contribute to the diversity of the law school in all aspects of their application.
The most recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the consideration of race in higher
education admissions is Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016). In this case, the Supreme
Court ruled that race-based admissions is constitutional when seeking to facilitate the educational
17

benefits associated with a diverse student population. Additionally, the ruling noted the positive
impact on the United States workforce and society as a result of students learning in a diverse
environment. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016) reaffirmed that the use of race in a
holistic admission process is constitutional so long as the process is defined by its ability to
contribute to the college’s goal of diversity, however, this case clarifies that this diversity goal
must be measurable.
While these Supreme Court cases uphold the educational value of having a racially
conscious, holistic admission process but deny the constitutionality of racial “quotas,” critics of
affirmative action maintain that this practice gives an unfair advantage to racial minorities.
Chang et al. (1999) examined the perception of affirmative action in higher education admissions
by naming misconceptions related to affirmative action in higher education. These
misconceptions are (a) racial inequalities are no longer relevant as they have been sufficiently
addressed, (b) merit in the admissions process is primarily defined by test scores, (c) race-neutral
policies provide fairness in the admission process, and (d) programs designed to promote
diversity only serve students of color (Chang et al., 1999). In this publication, Chang et al.
(1999) argued that race-conscious policies allow for direct addressing of historical and pervasive
racial discrimination and exclusion in higher education. Additionally, racial inequities can be
addressed through expanding the definition of merit beyond test scores to include student
perseverance, service, and leadership, and identifying the positive outcomes of student diversity
on students of color and white students. The misconceptions regarding affirmative action
presented by Chang and colleagues (1999) are still prevalent and inform the present-day
resistance towards Chief Diversity Officers. While these Supreme Court rulings place an
emphasis on the educational value of a diversity within the student body, scholars conducted
18

research set out to understand the actual educational outcomes related to student engagement
with diversity.
Educational Value of Racially Diverse Experiences
Even prior to the Supreme Court rulings, researchers responded to the idea of the
“diversity rationale” for affirmative action by conducting studies to understand further the
measurable educational impact of a student’s engagement with diversity. Scholars demonstrated
that there is a measurable positive impact among students who engage with diversity in the
student population and in coursework, however, this impact is dependent upon student racial
identity and class background. Researchers find that interracial student engagement is a key
component to obtain the benefits of a compositionally racially diverse student body (Chang,
2002; Chang et al., 2004; Pike & Kuh, 2006). As the enrollment of a racially diverse student
population provided the compositional and structural component of diversity, the level and
variety of interracial engagement provided different types of educational value.
One way of examining this engagement was through socializing and friendships across
racial groups. Antonio (2001) sought to examine the student’s developmental results of a
multicultural campus on a student’s ability to understand race, awareness of cultural differences,
and engagement in interracial social relationships. Antonio found that students generally
exhibited positive interracial and interethnic interactions, explicitly naming the importance of the
number of opportunities students had through physical student spaces and student activities to
interact with different races. However, in looking at students’ specific friend groups though not
wholly homogenous, Antonio found the social norm of grouping by race may minimize the
positive effects of this interracial engagement. While students may not choose friend groups
outside of their racial identity, the ability to socially interact with racially different students
19

through facilitated college spaces provides a positive outcome for social development for
students.
Another of the argued benefits of diversity on a college campus points to the idea that
different races bring novel ideas to the learning environment. In order to measure this diversity
benefit, Antonio et al. (2004) conducted small group discussions of Black and White students at
three universities, with a total of 357 participants. This study aimed to examine perceptions of
novel ideas as contributed by racial minorities and those in the minority based on ideas
contributed to the group. The study found that student discussion groups with racial and idea
minorities and those with interracial friendships demonstrated positive results for enhanced
complex thinking. This demonstrates that engaging the college’s compositional diversity through
interacting with a student in a racial minority enhances the critical and novel thinking of
students.
The educational value of diversity can also be measured by examining student outcomes
as a result of participating in activities designed by the institution to promote diversity awareness
or engagement curricular and co-curricular in nature. These types of diversity activities have
positive associations with cognitive development (Astin, 1993), critical thinking (Nelson Laird,
2005; Pascarella et al., 2001), and academic self-confidence (Nelson Laird, 2005). These
activities also positively promote student social agency and social action (Nelson Laird et al.,
2005). Research also demonstrates that curricular and co-curricular activity can positively
contribute to students’ racial understanding and cultural awareness (Chang, 2002) and attitudes
regarding other racial groups (Lopez, 2004).
Bowman (2009) found that students who participated in at least one diversity course were
more likely to demonstrate a higher interest in cognitive thinking than those that did not. While
20

taking more than one diversity course did not add to these gains for white students, Bowman’s
study found that for students of color, taking up to three diversity courses achieved the same
benefits gained by white students. Bowman posits that this difference might point to the idea
students of color may find their first couple of diversity courses introductory in nature, rather
than in-depth learning. Moreover, while former studies demonstrated that students benefit from
racial diversity through acquiring new knowledge in diversity activities or through interracial
interaction, Denson and Chang (2009) documented that a student can benefit from interacting
with peers who are engaging in these same diversity components, regardless if that student
engages in the same manner. As the research demonstrated educational benefits to both white
students and students of color in interacting with their racially disparate peers and diversity
activities, students of color often experience hostile racial campus climate while their presence
constitutes as “diversity” on their campus. While the CDO’s role incorporates cultivating a
diverse learning environment to reap the benefits racial diversity, the CDO’s role also includes
mitigating the hostile racial campus climate for students of color.
Racial Campus Climate
As the number of students of color increased on college campuses, interpersonal and
institutional racism were constant factors contributing to the environment for academic and
social success for students of color. “Campus racial climate” as defined by Hurtado et al. (1998)
demonstrated the college context that students encounter by examining these institutional
components: (a) the historical legacy of inclusion/exclusion, (b) compositional diversity
(numbers), (c) behavior dimensions (interactions and practices), and (d) psychological climate
(feelings and emotions). Figure 1 presents Hurtado et al.’s 1999 framework, illustrating the
interconnected nature of the structural, composition, psychological, and historical components of
21

campus climate and how each influence and impact the other. Hurtado et al.’s 1999 campus
climate framework remains foundational in understanding many facets contributing to the
environment experienced by students along race. Building upon this framework, Milem et al.
(2005) identified a fifth component: organizational/structural diversity. Milem et al. (2005)
stated this as “the organizational and structural aspects of colleges and the ways in which
benefits for some groups become embedded into these organizational and structural processes”
(p. 18).

22

Figure 1
Campus Climate Framework

Note. Adapted from “Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity” by S. Hurtado, A.
R. Clayton-Pedersen, W. R. Allen, & J. F. Milem, 1998, Educational policy and practice. The
Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279–302. (https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1998.0003). Copyright
1998 by Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Additionally, Yosso et al. (2009) posited that a positive campus climate would include
“(a) the inclusion of Students, Faculty, and Administrators of Color; (b) a curriculum reflecting
the historical and contemporary experiences of People of Color; (c) programs to support the
23

recruitment, retention, and graduation of Students of Color; and (d) a mission that reinforces the
institution’s commitment to diversity and pluralism” (p. 664). This foundational framework
provides a larger context to address diversity beyond the structural, to include other components
of the higher education experience that contribute to how students experience their institution.
While individual histories of segregation and the number of students of color vary by
campus, most students of color encounter a lower sense of belonging and often hostile
environments due to interpersonal and systemic racism. Regarding perceptions of campus
climate, research showed that students of color often differed from their white peers in how they
viewed the campus climate, particularly related to race. Additionally, previous research
demonstrated students of color experience racial hostility, stereotyping, and discrimination,
which all contributed to an overall lack of sense of belonging and heightened alienation and
isolation (Edman & Brazil, 2009; Johnson et al., 2007; Nuñez, 2009; Strayhorn, 2009).
Examining 15 years’ worth of campus climate research, Harper and Hurtado (2007)
identified the following themes among the campus climate studies over these years: (a)
differential perceptions of campus climate by race, (b) racial/ethnic minority students reports of
prejudicial and racists campus, and (c) benefits associated with campus climates that facilitate
cross-racial engagement. Utilizing a qualitative approach across multiple campuses, a method
only used once before in a study by Solórzano et al. (2000), Harper and Hurtado’s study focused
on five predominantly white institutions (PWIs) in different geographical locations across the
United States, with rural and urban settings represented among the campuses. Utilizing focus
groups across the five campuses, researchers conducted homogeneous groups of students totaling
to 278 Asian American, Black, Latino, Native American, and White students. Harper and
Hurtado identified nine themes that are described in Table 1.
24

Table 1
Nine Themes in Racial Campus Climate
Theme Description
Cross-Race consensus
regarding institutional
negligence
Students across racial identities indicated the belief that their
institution was negligent in creating a positive campus
climate regarding race.

Race as a four-letter word and
avoidable topic
Participants shared hesitation and resistance towards talking
about race and how racism presented on campus.

Self-Report of racial
segregation
Participants reported their own participation in racial
segregation in social circles.

Gaps in social satisfaction by
race
White and Asian American students expressed higher levels
of social satisfaction in comparison to their Latino, Native
American, and Black peers. Black students expressed the
highest levels of social dissatisfaction.

Reputational legacies of
racism
Students of color, particularly Black students shared they were
told by family or friends of the legacy of racism at their
institution.

White student overestimation
of minority student
satisfaction
White students shared that they believed that they thought
students of color had a positive or similar satisfaction with
campus climate as they did as White students.

The pervasiveness of
Whiteness in space,
curricula, and activities
Students named the overrepresentation of Whiteness in the
physical space, formal curriculum, and student activities
such as concerts or speakers.

The consciousness-powerless
paradox among racial/ethnic
minority staff
Administrators identified the desire to speak against racism
and the simultaneous fear of being perceived as
troublemakers if they voiced concerns about racism.

Unexplored realities of race
in institutional assessment
Colleges rarely conducted assessment regarding racial campus
climate

25

The nine themes found by Harper and Hurtado regarding racial climate all contribute to a
resistant campus climate under which CDOs are tasked to create more diverse and inclusive
college communities.
The legal cases regarding affirmative action in higher education provide a foundational
external factor influencing college diversity initiatives. These historical cases are one of the
driving forces for research seeking to determine the educational value of diversity within the
college. However, despite the positive influence on student outcomes of a racially diverse
student population, research regarding college campus racial climate demonstrates the need for
institutional support to address interpersonal and institutional racism faced by students of color.
Colleges have developed diversity agendas through models, structures, and leadership aimed at
creating more inclusive and equitable learning environments to address the organizational
resistance in the form of the aforementioned racial climate issues and discrimination.
Institutionalizing a Diversity Agenda in Higher Education
This section will provide a review of the literature regarding institutionalizing a diversity
agenda within higher education. Kramer (2000, as cited by Kezar, 2013, p. 167) describes the
process of “institutionalization” using the characteristics of “routine, widespread, legitimized,
expected, supported, permanent, and resilient.” Williams and Clowney (2007) alluded to this
process towards institutionalization in their discussion of the Diversity Crisis Model (Figure 2).
In their model, Williams and Clowney offered that the phases of diversity planning often begin
with a racial or sexist incident, followed by student activism (Mahler-Rogers, 2017) or the
installation of a senior leader such as CDO. Consequently, student activism serves as a catalyst
for direct action to address the failings in the current effort of diversity. Williams (2008) argued
that, to address the inadequacies of diversity agendas on campus proactively, strategic and
26

decentralized diversity planning and leadership are necessary to ensure a coordinated approach to
transformational diversity change.

Figure 2
The Diversity Planning Crisis Model

Note. From “Beyond the Diversity Crisis Model: Decentralized Diversity Planning and
Implementation” by D. A. Williams, 2008, Planning for Higher Education, 36(2), 27–41.
Copyright 2008 by College and University Planning (SCUP).

27

This section of the literature will discuss the institutionalization of diversity first with an
overview of the language of diversity in higher education, followed by models utilized to
operationalize the college’s diversity agenda. The section will conclude reviewing the literature
regarding strategy and leadership in institutionalizing a diversity agenda.
The Language of Diversity in Higher Education
Language and definitions can contextualize the terminology of “diversity” in higher
education. While the definition varies depending on the source, the words and definitions
associated with diversity can facilitate the functions of diversity in higher education. As part of
the Making Excellence series, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU;
n.d.) provided definitions for diversity, inclusion, equity, and equity-minded found in Table 2.
While the historical context of diversity for this literature review thus far is framed by race and
racial background, the AACU definitions expand the notion of diversity on college campuses to
include other identities such as race, class, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, and
ability. These definitions reflect the distinctions among the concepts, focusing on the evolution
from “diversity” (structural or demographic) to “equity-mindedness” (approach by an institution
in addressing inequities in student outcomes). These distinctions are of great importance in
operationalizing diversity, equity, and inclusion on a college campus. As such, academia
members have provided critiques of the institutional use of “diversity” and “inclusion.”

28

Table 2
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity: Core Principles
Concept Definition
Diversity Individual differences (e.g., personality, prior knowledge, and life experiences)
and group/social differences (e.g., race/ethnicity, class, gender, sexual
orientation, country of origin, and ability as well as cultural, political,
religious, or other affiliations).

Inclusion The active, intentional, and ongoing engagement with diversity—in the
curriculum, in the co-curriculum, and in communities (intellectual, social,
cultural, geographical) with which individuals might connect—in ways that
increase awareness, content knowledge, cognitive sophistication, and
empathic understanding of the complex ways individuals interact within
systems and institutions.

Equity The creation of opportunities for historically underserved populations to have
equal access to and participate in educational programs that are capable of
closing the achievement gaps in student success and completion.

Equity-
Mindedness
"The term 'Equity-Mindedness' refers to the perspective or mode of thinking
exhibited by practitioners who call attention to patterns of inequity in student
outcomes. These practitioners are willing to take personal and institutional
responsibility for the success of their students, and critically reassess their
own practices. It also requires that practitioners are race-conscious and aware
of the social and historical context of exclusionary practices in American
Higher Education."

Note. Adapted from Making Excellence Inclusive by Association of American Colleges &
Universities, n.d. (https://www.aacu.org/making-excellence-inclusive). Copyright n.d. by
Association of American Colleges and Universities.

College campuses often use the phrase “diversity, equity, and inclusion” to encapsulate
their work as an institution in addressing inequities within the college and promoting a diverse
learning environment. However, scholars have critiqued the use of words such as “diversity” and
“inclusion,” stating that these words fail to achieve any meaningful progress towards dismantling
29

institutional oppression (Ahmed, 2007a, 2007b; Cole & Harper, 2017; Davis & Harris, 2015;
Hoffman & Mitchell, 2016). In a 2017 article (Diversity and Inclusion vs. Equity and Social
Justice section) published in Inside Higher Ed by DL Stewart entitled "The Language of
Appeasement”, Stewart draws the contrast between diversity and equity and inclusion and
justice:
Diversity asks, “How many more of [pick any minoritized identity] group do we have
this year than last?” Equity responds, “What conditions have we created that maintain
certain groups as the perpetual majority here?”
Inclusion asks, “Is this environment safe for everyone to feel like they belong?” Justice
challenges, “Whose safety is being sacrificed and minimized to allow others to be
comfortable maintaining dehumanizing views?”
Stewart contextualized this comparison by discussing the role of student activists in bringing
about transformative efforts of diversifying the student and faculty bodies at historically white
institutions. Stewart (2017) asserted that diversity and inclusion rhetoric serves to satisfy
constituents in words alone, without providing substantive transformative change in addressing
inequities in the institution.
Scholars Harris et al. (2015) also questioned the use of inclusion language, specifically
by the AACU’s Inclusive Excellence framework, asking “Who Benefits?: A Critical Race
Analysis of the (D)evolving Language of Inclusion in Higher Education.” Focusing on racial
equity, Harris et al. (2015) employed Critical Race Theory to argue that the use of “inclusion”
language weakens the institutional effectiveness in racial equity work and “maintain the status
quo and uphold white privilege, rather than serve racially minoritized people” (p. 22). In their
analysis, these scholars called attention to the idea that the language of diversity fails to drive
30

transformational change. Instead, Harris et al. called for a focus on social justice, which
integrates the role of power, privilege, and oppression, in the analysis and dismantling of college
inequities, free of the co-opted nature used to dilute this concept and limit institutional change.
This critique is further supported by Lang and Yandell (2019,) who discussed diversity language
as a “system of maintenance.” This critique and discussion of institutional use of language shed
light on the tension between rhetoric and action. Operationalizing the language used to support
diversity at the college is necessary through structural models and leadership.
Models for Advancing a Diversity Agenda
With support for student diversity as a necessary component of campus diversity,
additional factors contribute to today’s holistic college diversity agenda. These factors include
the diversity of the faculty, diverse background and perspectives represented in the curriculum,
and policies and procedures meant to mitigate discrimination and harassment against protected
classes. Scholars and practitioners have created models for understanding and organizing the
work of a college’s diversity agenda. This section of the literature review will provide an
overview of these persisting models and their features: Affirmative Action and Equity Model,
Multicultural Model, and Diversity and Learning Model (Williams & Clowney, 2007), and the
Inclusive Excellence Organizational Change Framework (Williams et al., 2005). While these
models vary in historical context, definition of diversity, main focus, and programming for the
diversity agenda; the models provide a vantage point of examining operating paradigms within
an institution, which may not be directly supported by coordinated and integrated organizational
structure (Williams & Clowney, 2007).
In Williams and Clowney’s 2007 publication, the authors provided an analysis of the
historical context and legal backdrop informing the evolution of three models for organizational
31

diversity capabilities in higher education: The Affirmative Action and Equity model, the
Multicultural Model, and the Diversity and Learning Model. Table 3 provides Williams and
Clowney’s (2007) summary of these three models. For each model, Williams and Clowney
(2007) provided the historical timeline launching point, drivers of change, the operating
definition of diversity and rationale, strategy and target efforts, organizational capabilities, and
dynamic of change.
A major difference among the models is the target efforts of the Affirmative Action and
Equity Model and Multicultural model on students from marginalized and underrepresented
backgrounds. In contrast the Diversity and Learning Model targeted efforts focus on all students.
These differing target efforts demonstrate the balancing act of advancing an equitable learning
environment for historically marginalized groups while also minding the educational value of a
diverse learning environment. While each model differs in most components, Williams and
Clowney (2007) stated that each can be present by an institution, however, these different models
are rarely supported under a united organizational structure.

32

Table 3
Three Models of Organizational Diversity Capabilities in Higher Education
Affirmative action and
equity
Multicultural Diversity and
learning
Launching point 1950s and ’60s 1960s and ’70s Late 1990s and
2000s
Locus Civil rights movement Black Power and
other social
movements

Diversity
movement
Drivers of change Changing laws, policy,
social movements
Campus social
protests, changing
legal policy
Changing
demographics,
workforce
needs, persistent
inequalities,
legal and
political
dynamics

Definition Focused institutional
effort to enhance the
compositional
diversity of the
university’s faculty,
staff, and students and
to eliminate
discriminatory
practices
Institutional diversity
efforts designed
primarily to serve
ethnically and
racially diverse
students, women,
and other bounded
social identity
groups; and
secondarily to
research these
groups and
constituencies

Focused agenda
centered on
infusing
diversity into
the curriculum
of the institution
and conducting
research on
diversity
Diversity rationale Social justice Social justice Educational value

Strategy Remediation and
elimination of
discrimination.
Providing diversity
services, fostering
community and
tolerance on
campus, and
conducting research
and teaching
courses in the areas
of diversity.
Leveraging
diversity as an
important
resource for
student learning
and
development.
33

Affirmative Action and
equity
Multicultural Diversity and
learning
Target of efforts Federally projected
minority groups
All minorities,
bounded social
identity groups,
women, and
students with
disabilities

All students
Organizational
capability
Affirmative action
programs, plans, and
policy statements;
race-sensitive
admissions programs
and processes; equal
opportunity programs

Multicultural affairs
units, cultural
centers, and ethnic
and gender studies
institutes and
programs
Centralized
diversity
requirements
and diversity
programs such
as intergroup
relations offices
Dynamic of
change
Incremental – first order Incremental – first
order
Incremental –
first order

Note. From Strategic Planning for Diversity and Organizational Change: A Primer for Higher-
Education Leadership by D. Williams and C. Clowney, 2007, American Council on Education,
p. 5. Copyright 2007 by Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Another model published by Williams et al. (2005) is the Inclusive Excellence Change
Model, introduced in 2005 as the third paper in a commissioned series by the Association of
American Colleges and University (AACU), entitled Making Excellence Inclusive: Preparing
students and campuses for an Era of Great Expectations. This series (2005) served to help higher
education campuses:
1. Tie diversity work to the definition of college excellence
2. Ensure diversity work is integral to institutional functions
3. Actualize the educational benefits of a diverse population through sustained cultivation of
institutional diversity work.
34

While the models before Inclusive Excellence Model (Williams et al., 2005) could operate
separately and disparately, the Inclusive Excellence Change Model tied the various components
of the former models together through the charge of integrating diversity efforts across the
institution toward the goal of institutional excellence.
As the last paper in this AACU series, the introduction of the Inclusive Excellence
Change Model called colleges and universities to identify the dimensions of organizational
culture necessary to systematically integrate diversity and inclusion into the paradigm of
institutional excellence. According to Williams and Clowney (2007, p. 7), the six core
assumptions of the model are:
1. Political and legal dynamics, changing demographics, the emergence of the knowledge
economy, and persistent inequalities create the strategic context for a diversity rationale.
2. Diversity is an important institutional resource that should be enhanced, institutionalized,
and leveraged toward the goal of institutional excellence.
3. Focus needs to be on ensuring student intellectual and social development and offering
the best possible educational environment for all students, irrespective of identity and
background.
4. Organizational resources need to be used strategically to ensure that a diverse student
body achieves academically at high levels and that those on campus who contribute to
that goal are acknowledged and rewarded.
5. Attention needs to be paid to the cultural differences that learners bring to the educational
experience, and it must be recognized that these differences are to be used in the service
of learning for all students.
35

6. The intentional study of topics such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, power,
privilege, and the interdisciplinary nature of these topics and others advances the strength
of the academy and better situates postsecondary institutions to address emerging
challenges and dynamics presented by our evolving environmental context.
With the varying elements of the model presented in Table 4, William’s and Clowney (2007)
argued that the IE Change Model by including diversity values in the institutional definition of
excellence, provides an action plan for executive-level leaders, and calls all higher education
stakeholders into the change process. As the diversity agenda of the college permeates every
aspect of campus life, ensuring proper organizational structure, leadership, and channels for
accountability becomes crucial in accomplishing the diversity agenda (Williams & Clowney,
2007).

36

Table 4
Inclusive Excellence Change Model
Elements Definition Components
External
environment
Environmental forces that drive and
constrain implementation of
inclusive excellence

Shifting demographics
Societal inequities
Workforce needs
Political and legal dynamics

Organizational
behavior
dimensions

Multiple vantage points that must be
used to shift the informal and
formal environmental dynamics
toward inclusive excellence

Systemic
Bureaucratic
Symbolic
Collegial
Political

Organizational
culture

Dynamics that define higher
education and that must be
navigated to achieve inclusive
excellence

Mission
Vision
Values
Traditions
Norms

Inclusive
excellence
scorecard
Comprehensive framework for
understanding inclusive excellence
that extends and adapts work on
diversity scorecards and dimensions
of the campus climate

Access and equity
Diversity in the formal and
informal curriculum
Campus climate
Student learning
Inclusive
excellence
change strategy

Fluid institutional strategy to make
inclusive excellence a core
capability of the organization.

Senior leadership
Vision and buy-in
Capacity building
Leveraging resources

Note. From Toward a Model of Inclusive Excellence and Change in Postsecondary Institutions
By D. Williams, J. Berger, & S. McClendon, 2005, p. 31. Association of American Colleges and
Universities. Copyright 2005 by Association of American Colleges and Universities.

37

College Leadership for Institutionalizing a Diversity Agenda
As colleges and universities construct strategic plans and agendas for maintaining and
cultivating diversity on their campuses, organizational structures and strategies are also
developed to accomplish the diversity agenda’s objectives. Research demonstrates the
importance of college leadership, systems, and culture as driving factors in sustaining the
organizational performance of a college’s diversity agenda (Kezar, 2007b; Kezar et al., 2008).
These leadership and strategy components ensure the ongoing process of transforming the
rhetoric of diversity to an actualized diversity plan accompanied by ongoing action and
accountability.
Kezar (2007b) identified three phase levels of institutionalizing diversity agendas on
higher education campuses. The first phase involves campuses engaging vision setting and
creating priorities, motivating college constituents in this work, and constructing an
infrastructure to operationalize this work. The second phase occurs at the institutional level,
where the diversity agenda is rejuvenated and broadened to allow for ownership across the
campus. This phase is marked by its shift from the use of rhetoric in conveying the diversity
agenda to action in the diversity agenda. The third phase involves a deeper dive into challenging
existing campus systems, paradigms of teaching and learning, and structures to lead to better
organizational support with assessment, accountability, and leadership for the diversity agenda.
Researchers also observed that college presidents play a significant leadership role in
actualizing a diversity agenda (Kezar, 2007a, 2007b; Kezar & Eckel, 2008; Kezar et al., 2008;
LePeau et al., 2018). The president of a college tailors their approach to different constituents,
tasks, and issues through various leadership styles. Kezar and Eckel’s (2008) study of
presidential leadership styles demonstrated that presidents utilize transformational leadership in
38

conversation or rallying of constituents, while utilizing transactional leadership to build
incentives and structures to motivate action towards the diversity agenda. Adserias et al. (2017)
further examined presidential leadership styles through their literature review regarding
institutional diversity in higher education. In Adserieas et al.’s review (2017) of nine
publications, researchers found that presidents utilize a variety of leadership styles, implicitly or
explicitly, such as transformational leadership, full-range leadership, reciprocal empowerment,
and strategic diversity leadership. Presidents may these varying leadership styles to reach a wide
range of constituents and achieve institutional priorities that a leader must address through a
diversity agenda.
This wide range of constituents and institutional priorities demonstrate the institutional
reach and interconnectedness of an institutional diversity agenda. Kezar et al. (2008) further
emphasized the importance of the college president’s role in advancing an institutional diversity
agenda, showcasing the president’s leadership position through a metaphor of a web of non-
linear strategies that must be employed by the institution. Kezar et al. (2008) identified six
important actors as “nodes” of the web: faculty, administrators, staff, students, boards, and
various external organizations. The “strands” of the web are human resource strategies employed
by presidents (p. 78). These strands included (a) presidential involvement in hiring in order to
hire faculty of color, (b) intergenerational faculty of color mentoring programs, (c)
transformation of teaching and learning through partnership with faculty, (d) support for student
affairs professionals in creating supportive environments, (e) direct interaction and engagement
with students, and (f) creation of external support through the Board of Trustees and additional
networks.
39

Chun (2017) and LePeau et al. (2019) examined the nature of these networks and board
support in supporting institutional diversity. Chun (2017) conducted qualitative interviews of
current and board members to determine their relationship with diversity and inclusion on
campus. Chun (2017) found that, though data reporting from senior leadership occurs, boards
tend to not leverage this data to change processes or patterns to address diversity and inclusion
issues. Additionally, presidents have employed formal strategies such as a President’s
Committee for Diversity (PCD), with various representatives from across divisions within the
college. LePeau et al., (2019) found that PCDs utilized strategies of mobilization (vision and
goal setting), implementation (structural and systemic changes to the institution to support the
goal), and institutionalization (cultural shifts facilitated by initiatives). Boards and PCDs
demonstrate the need to create the web of institutional mobilization toward the institution’s
diversity agenda, as described by Kezar et al. (2008). In establishing models to guide the
institution’s diversity agenda through campus diversity leadership and strategies, colleges and
universities have also created an executive-level diversity officer, commonly referred to as the
CDO.
The Chief Diversity Officer
This section of the literature review provides a description of the emergence of the Chief
Diversity Office role in higher education, the different vertical structures of the CDO role, and
the importance of collaboration and relationships in the CDO work. This section concludes with
a review of the literature critiquing the CDO role and its influence on institutional
transformation.

40

Emergence and Construction of the CDO Role
The emergence of a CDO in colleges and universities in the 2010s (Williams & Wade-
Golden, 2007; Worthington et al., 2014) signals the executive-level leadership shepherding the
institution's diversity activities, strategic plans, and agendas. The convergence of higher
education professionals’ educational and career preparation in areas of college diversity and the
need for an institutional response to highly visible campus climate issues or controversy have
given way to the installation of CDOs on college campuses (Parker, 2015). While the title of
CDO is fairly new in higher education, its roots are in other titles such as affirmative action
officers, equal opportunity officers, and minority affairs officers (Banerji, 2005). These roots
indicate the compliance-based origin associated with affirmative action and equal opportunity.
Calling attention to the role of compliance as related to laws and timelines, Banerji (2005) raised
the awareness of other aspects of CDO role, such as minority recruitment and diversifying the
curriculum, which are not necessitated by laws and instead rely on institutional change agents.
Malewski and Jaramillo (2016) made this connection in tracing the emergence of the CDO role
from change agents within the university who strived for transformed campus culture. While the
roots of this change work related to racial equity, Malewski and Jaramillo also highlighted the
connection to the inclusion of women, the LGBTQ community, veterans, and people with
disabilities as part of the transformative change.
This long-standing grounding in diversity leadership before the CDO role is evident in a
2011 Witt/Kieffer report on CDOs. Tables 5 shows data from Witt/Kieffer (Association of
Executive Search and Leadership Consultants, 2011) survey of over 1,800 CDOs, with a 5%
response rate of 94 individual responses. As noted in Table 5, the majority of CDOs reported 11
to 15 or more years of diversity leadership experience, demonstrating the depth of experience in
41

diversity work. Moreover, Tables 6 and 7 provided data from the 2019 report by Russell
Reynolds Associates, where Pihakis et al. surveyed 60 CDOs. In this report, the majority of
surveyed CDOs have backgrounds as diversity administrators and also possess a terminal degree.

Table 5
Years of Diversity Leadership Experience for Chief Diversity Officers
Years of experience %
15+ years
41%
11-15 years
25%
6-10 years
20%
1-5 years 12%

42

Table 6
Career Backgrounds for Chief Diversity Officers
Background %
Diversity administrator 65%
University faculty member 45%
Student affairs professional 25%
Legal expert 17%

Table 7
Educational Background for Chief Diversity Officers
Highest degree attained %
Doctor of philosophy 57%
Doctor of education 15%
Juris doctorate 12%
Master’s degree 12%
Medical doctorate 3%
Bachelor of arts degree 2%

43

In addition to the professional and educational backgrounds of CDOs, Marana (2016) and
Nixon (2017) called attention to CDOs’ marginalized identities as part of their personal
background leading to the role. Having experienced discrimination and inequity throughout their
student and professional careers in higher education, CDOs choose a leadership position tasked
with changing the very structures and issues that contributed to their own marginalization within
colleges and universities.
With this professional and educational context, CDOS must possess certain professional
competencies. These competencies range from technical skills and knowledge regarding
diversity issues and creating results-oriented visions to political savvy in relationship building
and creating institutional buy-in (Leon, 2014; Mednick Takami, 2017; Suarez et al., 2018;
Williams & Wade-Golden, 2008, 2013). Pihakis et al. (2019) described six categories for CDO
competencies: (a) strategic leadership and change management, (b) persuasion and influence, (c)
data-savvy storytelling, (d) external engagement, (e) personal motivation and resilience, and (f)
domain expertise and understanding of higher education culture. The competencies are supported
by the National Association for Diversity Officers (NADOHE) in Higher Education, which set
out to professionalize the role of the CDO (Worthington et al., 2014; Worthington et al., 2020)
and are provided in Appendix A. NADOHE offers a set of professional standards in order to
guide the work of CDOs, specifically acknowledging that the institutional resources and
structures varied across institutions. The professional standards are informed by Figure 3,
Worthington’s (2012) three-dimensional model of higher educational diversity, which visually
represents the core areas of diversity work as it intersects with social identity and core
stakeholders within higher education. While the actual job description of CDOs might vary from
44

institution to institution, this three-dimensional model provides an overarching understanding of
the CDO position and informs the professional standards proposed by NADOHE.

Figure 3
Three-Dimensional Model of Higher Education Diversity

Note. From “Advancing Scholarship for the Diversity Imperative in Higher Education: An
Editorial” by R. Worthington, 2012, Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, p. 2. Copyright
2012 by National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education.

Core Areas:
Recruitment & Retention
Campus Climate
Curriculum & Instruction
Research & Inquiry
Intergroup Relations & Discourse
Student/Faculty/Staff Achievement & Success
Leadership Development
Nondiscrimination
Procurement/Supplier Diversity
Institutional Advancement
External Relations
Strategic Planning & Accountability
Social Identity Characteristics:
Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Age, Sexual
Orientation, Disability, Religion, National &
Geographic Origin, Language Use, Socio-
Economic Status,
First Generation, Veteran/Military, Political
Ideology
Focal Groups:
Faculty
Students
Staff
Administrators
Trustees
Alumni
Others
45

Organizational Structures and Context
While colleges and universities have created the CDO at their institution, it is also
important to understand the different organizational structures supporting and resources allocated
to this position and how this impacts the CDO’s success. A variety of support for the CDO
manifests in reporting structure, administrative and programmatic personnel support, and
budgetary and financial resources.
Depending on the organizational structures, CDOs do not have sufficient resources to
accomplish the institutional diversity agenda associated with their role. According to Williams
and Wade-Golden (2007) the vertical dynamics of the CDO role are the CDO role’s
organizational support. These vertical dynamics included the institutional rank of the CDO and
to whom the CDO reported. In terms of their institutional rank, Williams and Wade-Golden
found that of the 110 CDOs in their study, 33% had the title of Vice President/Vice Chancellor,
22% were Associate Vice Presidents/Associate Vice Provosts/Associate Vice Chancellors, 6%
held the title of Assistant Vice President/Assistant Vice Provost/Assistant Vice Chancellor, 4%
held the title of Dean, and 36% were Special Assistants to the President.
Additionally, Pihakis et al. (2019) found that of their surveyed CDOs, 70% reported to a
President, 10% reported to a Chancellor, 15% reported to the Provost, and 5% reported to a
Senior Vice President. These numbers signify the rank and authority context from which CDOs
can conduct their work. In Leon’s 2014 qualitative study interviewing three CDOs, interviewees
indicated that the executive level rank impacted their ability for effectiveness when working with
members of the president’s cabinet. Wilson’s 2013 study of CDOs supports this impact, noting
that serving on the president’s cabinet allows for ease of information sharing throughout the
organization with fellow chief college officers, rather than needing to navigate other information
46

channels with this institutional rank and authority. The CDO’s rank and reporting structure serve
as institutional signals regarding the value and authority of the CDO role in instituting
organizational change. The programmatic, personnel, financial resources allocated to the CDO
and their work demonstrate the value and authority of the CDO role.
In evaluating the organizational structures, additional important supportive components
are the administrative staff reporting the CDO, the departments or units (if any) reporting to the
CDO, and the CDOs departmental or divisional budget and access to financial resources in order
to accomplish CDO work. Williams and Wade-Golden (2007) discussed three archetypes for the
CDO vertical structures in higher education: Collaborative Officer Model, Unit-Based Model,
and the Portfolio Divisional Model. The distinctions between these models vary by the amount
of administrative support staff and if any or how many divisions and units related to diversity
work reporting directly to the CDO. The strengths and weaknesses of each model (Williams &
Wade-Golden, 2007) are outlined in Table 8.

47

Table 8
Archetypes of CDO Vertical Structure
Key characteristics Strengths Weaknesses
Collaborative
officer model
Limited human
resources
Limited financial
resources
High ranking title
Maintains current
campus organizational
structure
Low cost
Flexible in change and
redefinition of CDO
role
Dedicated role to advise
on matters of diversity

Symbol of diversity
commitment
More symbolic than
material commitment to
the CDO role
CDO serves as thought-
leader, limited ability to
activate new initiatives
Limits ability to
collaborate
No economics of scale

Unequal footing between
CDO and comparable
senior leaders
Unit-based
model
Same leadership
type as
Collaborative
Officer Model
Central CDO
administrative,
programming,
and/or research
staff
Moderately integrated
into campus
organizational structure
Dedicated role to advise
on matters of diversity
Symbol of diversity
commitment
Enhanced capacity to
create new diversity
initiatives and
programs
More structured and
professional archetype
for engaging diversity
issues as a strategic
priority
Potential organizational
conflict with diversity
units no in the CDO
portfolio
Potential organizational
conflict with general
campus-wide units not
in the CDO portfolio
More cost-intensive than
Collaborative Officer
Model in terms of staff
and hosting a dedicated
unit on campus
48

Key characteristics Strengths Weaknesses
Portfolio
divisional
model
Inclusive of aspects
of Collaborative
Officer Model and
Unit-Based
models;
distinguished by
the presence of
several direct
reporting units in a
vertically
integrated
portfolio, creating
a dedicated
divisional
infrastructure
Dedicated role to advise
on matters of diversity
Enhanced capacity to
create new diversity
initiatives and
programs
Enhanced capacity to
engage in collaborative
relationships with
others and seed new
possibilities
Ability to leverage
current diversity
infrastructure
Creates CDO/dedicated
diversity capacity and
economies of scale
Powerful symbol of
diversity commitment
to the campus diversity
agenda
Mirrors the divisional
structure of comparable
senior level titles
Most vertically structured
and professional
archetype for engaging
diversity issues as a
strategic priority
Integrated into the
traditional campus
structure and may
generate organizational
conflict on campus

Potential organizational
dissonance with
dedicated diversity
units not in the CDO
portfolio

Most cost-intensive
model, requiring more
resources for staff and
other expenses related
to hosting another
division at the
institution

Alignment of units could
be viewed as
“ghettoizing diversity”

Note. From The Chief Diversity Officer by D. Williams and K. Wade-Golden, 2013, pp. 168–
169. Copyright 2013 by Stylus Publishing, LLC.

49

This table highlights considerations for dedicated financial resources, human resources,
and the ability to coordinate and align the vision, mission, and goals for diversity objectives
within the divisions and units. For example, the lowest cost is typically associated with the
Collaborative Officer Model as there might not be as many costs associated with personnel
directly under the CDO. However, this often limits the CDO’s ability to achieve the institutional
expectations of the role without relying heavily on collaborations with other college officials.
Williams and Wade-Golden’s 2013 study of CDOs found that 55% of those surveyed did not feel
as though their office was structured for optimally meeting institutional goals set forward by
their institution. Additionally, while the Portfolio Divisional Model provides the most structured
approach to unifying institutional diversity work across the college, Williams and Wade-Golden
(2013) noted that this unification can lead to “ghettoizing diversity.” By “ghettoizing,” Williams
and Wade-Golden (2013) referred to the institutional relegation of the college’s diversity agenda
the division reporting to the CDO rather than a shared, college-wide diversity agenda regardless
of reporting structure. With the potential limitations of insufficient organizational support
structures such as personnel or budget, collaboration, and interpersonal influence play a key role
in the work of CDOs.
Collaboration and Interpersonal Relationship Building
With components of the CDO role tied to almost every aspect of the college
(Worthington, 2012), collaboration and interpersonal relationship building are a critical and
unavoidable facet of the CDO’s work (Stanley et al., 2019). A 2017 interview with the Missouri
State CDO Dr. Kevin McDonald discussed this collaborative relationship with college officials.
McDonald shared that often collaborative partners’ diversity work is an add-on or collateral in
nature and seek the resources of the CDO in order to accomplish this task (Douglas & Little,
50

2017). Leon’s 2014 multisite case study of CDOs’ vertical structure models found that the
commitment to diversity outcomes of their collaborative partners is not within the CDOs control.
Therefore the CDO is left to rely on the “good will” of their colleagues in accomplishing their
goals. This is further supported by Wilson’s 2013 qualitative study of CDOs who indicated that
the CDOs work necessitated collaboration, with one participant stating: “I have to [collaborate].
There is no way that I could do everything that I have to do without collaboration” (p. 440). This
direct quote from Wilson’s 2013 study describes how the CDO position is reliant on
collaboration with college stakeholders to accomplish the college’s diversity agenda, not only for
the purpose for facilitating institutional reach but to also supplementing limited human or
financial resources available to CDOs. Williams and Wade-Golden (2013) further explored the
relationship between CDOs and collaborators due to the CDO’s institutional role. In this regard,
Williams and Wade-Golden describe the collaborative process as the “renegotiation of
boundaries and identities,” where CDOs may experience discord with college officials who view
the CDOs as impeding upon the collaborating college official’s “territory” or work within the
college (p. 85). CDOs are dependent on informal networks and building strategic partnerships
across campus to achieve their goals, however, these partnerships are not always welcomed due
to perception of the CDO and their role.
Moreover, due to the nuanced nature of addressing issues of inclusion and equity
(Gravley-Stack et al., 2016) and because they are often from marginalized backgrounds (Marana,
2016; Nixon, 2017), CDOs encounter resistance and even discrimination in their collaborations
and cultivation of buy-in regarding accomplishing the institution’s diversity agenda (Douglas &
Little, 2017; Marana, 2016; Nixon, 2017). In Nixon’s 2017 qualitative study of women of color
in CDO positions, CDOs indicated that they experienced resistance from their colleagues
51

because of the nature of their work and their racial and gender identity. One CDO stated, “CDO-
ing is seen as a colored thing,” resulting in “double triple marginalization, by gender, by
ethnicity, and by virtue of one’s work” (p. 312). Participants in this study who indicated that they
navigated white privilege at all levels of the institution, were challenged in finding confidants for
support and community and were perceived as “sell outs” when maintaining confidential
information when campus diversity issues were raised around personnel or college finances. This
resistance and discrimination is often tied to undercurrents of individual and institutional racism
and hegemony on college campuses. In order to counter resistance and still move towards
institutional change, CDOs must employ a variety of institutional strategies as outlined in Table
9 (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013), including educational, entrepreneurial, accountability,
symbolic, communication, and research strategies.

52

Table 9
Institutional Change Strategies Applied by Chief Diversity Officers
Strategies Description Examples
Educational
strategies
Strategies designed to
educate students,
faculty, and staff on
diversity issues
Diversity briefings with senior leadership
Diversity symposia and conferences
Diversity training programs
Intergroup relations programs
Diversity with search committees
Assistance in the development of general
education diversity distribution
requirements

Entrepreneurial
strategies
Strategies either
implemented directly
through the CDO or
designed to provide
financial incentives to
encourage involvement
from the campus
community, spurring
involvement and
innovation in campus
diversity initiatives
Providing faculty diversity and student
diversity challenge grants
Seeding new faculty positions
Providing matching funds for new
initiatives
Cultivating gifts from prominent alumni
and community members
Writing private, corporate, and federal
grant proposals
Developing pilot initiatives and programs

Accountability
strategies
Strategies designed to
align the systems and
processes of the
institution with
institutional diversity
goals
Establishing search accountability
mechanisms
Infusing diversity into performance
assessment
Developing campus-wide diversity plans
Requiring decentralized diversity plans
Establishing key diversity indicators

Symbolic strategies Strategies designed to
leverage culture, myths,
and political dynamics
to achieve diversity
goals and build support
Sending regular supportive messages from
senior leadership
Leveraging the reflective power of the
president
Offering diversity awards and events that
ritualize diversity within the culture

53

Strategies Description Examples
Communication
strategies
Strategies designed to
communicate the
institution’s diversity
interests and capabilities
Infusing diversity into mainstream campus
publications and media vehicles
Developing diversity-targeted web sites,
brochures, and videos
Targeting communications to diverse
constituencies
Writing annual diversity progress reports

Research strategies Strategies designed to
better define the current
state of diversity on
campus in terms of
access and equity,
student success, campus
climate, and student
learning and
development
Campus climate studies
Demographic studies
Salary equity analyses
Studies of the student experience with
diversity
Retention and graduation studies

Note. From The Chief Diversity Officer: A Primer for college and university presidents by
Williams, D. and Wade-Golden, K., 2007, American Council on Education, p. 12. Copyright
2007 by American Council on Education.

Critiques of the Chief Diversity Officer Position
While the CDO is often meant to be an agent of institutional change to move a college
towards meeting their diversity agenda outcomes, critics of the position express concerns
regarding the figurehead or savior nature of this role, which can placate the call for institutional
equity rather than engage in transformational change. Wilson (2013) discussed the potential for
the CDO to be perceived as a “band-aid,” particularly if this role is impacted when financial
difficulties befall an institution and budget cuts limit this role. Moreover, Hu-DeHart (as cited in
Harvey, 2014) argued that the creation of the CDO position has the potential for presidents and
provosts to relinquish their responsibilities related to diversity on their campus. Additionally,
54

Harvey (2014) warned CDOs of the potential of “passive resistance.” Harvey stated, “that very
institution that employs [CDOs] are designed to maintain, not to reconfigure, the existing social
structure and the consequent patterns of opportunity and mobility” (p. 92). Williams and Tuitt (in
press) further examine this notion of social structures through the concept of Plantation Politics
to examine the role of the CDO through the lens of the United States legacy of the enslavement
of Black people. From this vantage point, Williams and Tuitt (in press) posit that institutional
investment in the CDO position and models like Inclusive Excellence serve to hide how Black
people on a college campus are exploited and become complicit in suppressing resistance toward
the institution in dismantling this dynamic. These potential pitfalls and critiques of the CDO role
contribute to understanding the problem of organizational resistance in support of the CDO
position in higher education.
The evolution of diversity work, from landmark Supreme Court affirmative action cases
to the current models and structures within colleges that support a college’s diversity agenda
informs the current landscape of the work of CDOs. Given the institutional reach of the CDO
position and its integral role in addressing campus bias and discrimination, college leadership
can find great insight in examining the organizational catalysts and barriers influencing the
effectiveness of the CDO position. In this examination, college can cultivate promising practices
and dismantle barriers that prevent the CDO from realizing the full potential of their leadership
and competencies towards actualizing and accomplishing the college’s diversity agenda.
The Burke-Litwin Organizational Change Framework
Understanding the problem of organizational resistance towards the CDO position within
higher education requires an examination of organizational elements and levers that facilitate or
hinder the CDO’s ability to work towards the diversity agenda. Williams and Wade-Golden
55

(2007) and Worthington (2012) assert that the CDOs portfolio and objectives involve each aspect
of the college, and therefore this study will utilize the Burke-Litwin Organizational Change
Model (Burke & Litwin, 1992) as the theoretical framework for understanding the dynamic
nature of organizational influences for the CDO role.
Burke and Litwin (1992) provided an organizational change model that describes the
relationship between various elements of the organizational structure and their ability to create
change. The model organized these organizational elements into four categories: (a) external
factors, (b) transformational factors, (c) transactional factors, and (d) individual factors (Figure
4). Burke and Litwin (1992) described external factors as factors outside of the organization that
create the need for change, such as legislation. Transformational factors are described as
strategic elements that define the objectives of the change occurring within the organization.
Burke and Litwin’s named transformational elements include Strategy/Mission, Leadership, and
Organizational Culture. Transactional factors are those operational elements that include day-to-
day functions of the organizations, where change may occur easily, however, not necessarily
sustainable organizational change. These elements include Structure, Management Practices, and
Systems (Policies and Procedures). Lastly, the individual factors are the various organizational
elements that dictate individual performance of the change. Individual factors include Work Unit
Climate, Individual Skills and Tasks, Motivation, and Individual Needs and Values. All of these
factors are interconnected and ultimately dictate the individual and organization performance or
output of the organizational change.

56

Figure 4
Burke Litwin Organizational Change Model

For the purpose of this study, the elements of the Burke-Litwin (1992) model will be
addressed below by examining the transformational, transactional, and individual elements of
higher education impacting CDOs’ ability to create organizational change in their college setting,
as depicted in Figure 5. The first section will discuss the assumed influences on the field
performance goal in the context of transformational elements of Strategy, Leadership, and
57

Organizational Culture. The second section will discuss the assumed influences on the
transactional elements of Structure and Work Unit Climate. Lastly, this section will conclude
with a discussion of assumed influences on the field performance goal on the individual elements
of Motivation and Individual Values, and Task Requirements/Individual Skills and Abilities.
Chapter Three will examine each of these assumed transformational, transactional, and
individual influences through the study’s methodology.

Figure 5
Organizational Resistance for Chief Diversity Officers in Small Liberal Arts Colleges

TRANSFORMATIONAL
Presidential Leadership
Transformative Leadership
Adaptive Leadership
Inclusive Excellence
INDIVIDUDUAL
Skills & Knowledge
Motivation & Value
TRANSACTIONAL
Reporting Structure
Budget and Staff
Work Unit Climate
Chief Diversity Officer
58

Transformational Influences
This section of the review will present the transformational influences necessary for
CDOs to create organizational support with cultural settings, practices, and organizational
structures to bolster and support the CDO position in accomplishing the institution’s diversity
agenda. Burke and Litwin (1992) characterized transformational elements by being influenced by
external factors and, if change occurs to these elements, having high potential to create change
throughout the entire organization. The transformational elements explored through this are
Mission/Vision, Leadership, and Organizational Culture.
The Organization Needs a Mission and Strategy of Inclusive Excellence
Burke-Litwin’s model (1992) discussed “Mission and Strategy” as a transformational
element. In order to create organizational change, the vision, mission, and strategy of the
organization must clearly align with the objectives set out by the institution (Clark & Estes,
2008; Schein, 2017). The mission and vision set the organizational goals, which is
operationalized by the organization’s strategy of ensuring these organizational goals are met. The
Inclusive Excellence (IE) Scorecard guides setting a mission and strategy for colleges seeking to
accomplish their diversity agenda (Williams et al., 2005) and closely mirrors the portfolio and
oversight of the CDO. The IE Scorecard, developed after the Diversity Scorecard (Bensimon,
2004), provided the following areas as strategies for accomplishing this institutional excellence:
access and equity, diversity in the formal and informal curriculum, campus climate, and student
learning and development. If the organization’s mission and strategy do not align with these
areas, the organization is unable to create organizational support from the highest level of the
organization with the work of the CDO.
59

College President and CDOs Need to Employ an Adaptive Leadership Style to Advance the
College’s Diversity Agenda
Burke and Litwin (1992) also discussed “leadership” as a transformational organizational
element. Burke and Litwin describe leadership as the positions responsible for setting the
direction and vision for the organization while also motivating organizational members. In the
setting of higher education, this leadership can be defined by the president, board of trustees, and
executive leaders (including vice presidents and chief executive college officials such as the
CDO). The literature explicitly named the president as a key player in institutionalizing a
diversity agenda (Kezar, 2007a, 2007b; Kezar & Eckel, 2008; Kezar et al., 2008) and providing
support to the CDO in terms of institutional access and authority to create institutional change
(Aguilar & Bauer, 2014). In examining the leadership styles in institutionalizing a diversity
agenda, research cites that presidents employ a variety of leadership approaches, mainly
including transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and strategic diversity leadership
(Adserias et al., 2017; Kezar, 2008; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013).
The leadership style of the president and the CDO is an important factor in creating
organizational support for the CDO’s ability to effect organizational change. Northouse (2016)
stated that transformational leadership is “the process whereby a person engages with others and
creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the
followers” (p. 162). Transformational leadership drives long term goals, emotions, values, ethics,
and standards and is attentive to the follower’s needs, motives, and sense of contribution to the
organization. By contrast, transactional leadership is more concerned with a this-for-that,
reciprocal, and practical exchange between leader and follower (Northouse, 2016). Due to the
nature of a college’s diversity agenda, College presidents combine transformational leadership
60

with transactional leadership to accomplish specific goals in their diversity agenda (Kezar,
2008). While Williams and Wade-Golden (2013) described the leadership style of CDO’s as a
strategic diversity leadership, using specific strategies depending on the goal or task at hand.
The Adaptive Leadership style (Northouse, 2016) might also illuminate this push and pull
between the transactional and transformational aspects of leadership. Northouse (2016) described
adaptive leadership as the process of mobilizing followers through addressing challenges.
Focused on the actions of mobilizing, motivating, organizing, and orienting followers, adaptive
leadership specifically addresses organizational challenges that are adaptive or technical-
adaptive. Technical challenges are defined as problems that have defined solutions that use
existing organizational structures to implement change. In contrast, adaptive challenges are
problems that are not able to be clearly defined or easily identifiable and therefore do not have
clear solutions. As the work of the CDO is defined by addressing problems of inequity, access,
inclusion, and systemic oppression (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013), the work of the CDO can
be defined as both technical and adaptive in nature. Adaptive leadership is characterized by
engaging followers in adaptive work and creating a “holding environment” to process conflict.
Given its follower-focus, adaptive leadership has a high potential for facilitating the necessarily
collaborative nature of the CDO’s work with other college vice presidents and other stakeholders
(Douglas & Little, 2017; Leon, 2014; Wilson, 2013).
The Organization Needs a Culture of Inclusive Excellence
Burke and Litwin (1992) also identified organizational culture as a transformational
organizational element needed for organizational change. According to Burke and Litwin (1992),
organizational culture is defined by the organization’s values, explicit and implicit rules,
regulations, practices, principles, and manners. Schein (2017) discussed how culture is
61

embedded in the organization’s basic assumptions, that are reinforced and change as the
organization develops new solutions to problems. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) discussed
culture through two modes: cultural models and cultural settings. Gallimore and Goldenberg
(2001) described cultural models as “shared mental schema or normative understandings of how
the world works, or out to work” (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001, p. 47). Cultural models
account for the cognitive components of the organization, such as values, beliefs, and attitudes.
In contrast, Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) define cultural settings by the visible and concrete
manifestations of the cultural models, such as structures and systems. In this regard, Burke-
Litwin’s (1992) use of organizational culture ties more directly to Gallimore and Goldenberg’s
cultural model.
Focusing on values, beliefs, and attitudes to support the CDO in affecting organizational
change, the organization must have a cultural model that reflects the values of Inclusive
Excellence. These values and beliefs are defined by Williams et al.’s (2005) four primary
elements of Inclusive Excellence. These basic principles include attention to the intellectual and
social development of students, intentional use of institutional resources to improve student
learning, focus on cultural differences to enhance educational experiences and learning, and
creation of a welcoming environment to support student and organizational learning that includes
all forms of diversity.

62

Table 10
Transformational Influences
Field goal
Create organizational support with cultural settings, practices, and organizational structures to
bolster and support the chief diversity officer position at small liberal arts colleges in
accomplishing the institution’s diversity agenda.
Transformational influence Transformational influence assessment
Mission and strategy: The organization needs
a strategy of inclusive excellence
CDOs were asked via interviews about the
creation of the CDO position and about the
nature, if any, of a diversity strategic plan at
their institution
Leadership: College president and CDOs need
to employ an adaptive leadership style to
advance the college’s diversity agenda
CDOs were asked via interviews regarding
their supervisor and their working
relationship and the leadership of the
president
Organizational culture: The organization
needs a culture of inclusive excellence
CDOs were asked via interviews to what
extent Inclusive Excellence is promoted at
their college.

Transactional Influences
This section of the review will present the transactional influences necessary for CDOs to
create organizational support with cultural settings, practices, and organizational structures to
bolster and support the CDO position in accomplishing the institution’s diversity agenda. In
contrast to transformational elements, Burke and Litwin define transactional as the “primary way
of alteration in via relatively short-term reciprocity among people and groups” (p. 529). Burke-
63

Litwin (1992) identified transactional influences as the organizational structure, systems
(policies and procedures), management practices, and work climate. These elements focus on the
day-to-day human behaviors that contribute to the climate of the organization. To support
organizational change, Clark and Estes (2008) stated that structures and systems within the
organization must align with the stated goals. These goals are articulated through the
transformational influences of mission and strategy, leadership, and organizational culture and
are realized through the transactional influences of structure and systems. As mentioned in the
section on organizational culture, Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) offered the concept of
cultural setting to understand these structures and systems. Gallimore and Goldenberg defined
the cultural setting of the organization by the physical, tangible, and concrete manifestations of
the organizational cultural model (values, beliefs, and attitudes). For example, the cultural setting
would include articulated goals, active role models, feedback procedures, resources, and task
assignments.
The Organization Needs to Provide Sufficient Budget and Personnel Resources to Meet the
Needs of the College’s Diversity Agenda
Chief Diversity Officers often feel as though they are not provided the resources to
accomplish the scope of the institution’s diversity agenda (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013).
Williams and Wade-Golden discussed the importance of vertical reporting structure for the
CDO, illustrating the nature CDO relationship with their supervisor and the nature of what
personnel and departmental units report to the CDO. If budgetary or personnel resources limit
the CDO, the CDO must rely on collaborations and partnerships to carry out the scope of
institution’s diversity agenda (Aguilar & Bauer, 2014; Leon, 2014; Williams & Wade-Golden,
2013; Wilson, 2013). The role of the CDO’s supervisor also plays a significant role in access to
64

budget and personnel resources. Often reporting to the president or another executive-level
college official (Aguilar & Bauer, 2014; Leon, 2014), the CDOs relationship to college
leadership can dictate access to resources. Burke (2018) observes the importance of the
“enticement” in organizational change, which connects organizational members’ desire to
participate in organizational change with the organizational leader’s ability to secure resources
such as additional staff, physical space, and budget growth. In this regard, having the support of
the college leadership and the resources facilitated through that support serves to support the
work of the CDO.
The Organization Needs to Value Active Engagement in the Institution’s Diversity Agenda
Burke and Litwin (1992) referred to the work unit climate as another transactional
organizational element in the change process. In this, work unit climate accounts for the
immediate work environment, which can shape how someone in this organization feels about the
organization and how the change in the organization is managed in the work unit level. As the
work of the CDO impacts individuals across the college and their work relies heavily on their
relationships with partners on campus (Cooper, 2014; Douglas & Little, 2017; Leon, 2014;
Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013; Wilson, 2013), a CDO must work with individual work units to
ensure the climate is one that encourages and supports participation in the overall mission and
strategy of the college’s diversity agenda. This resonates with research themes found related to
campus climate, where staff and administrators indicated that they feared being identified as
“trouble makers” or facing retaliation if naming shortcomings of the college in terms of racial
equity (Harper & Hurtado, 2007). If the organization fails to create a work climate that creates
safety to engage in conversations of inequity as it relates to diversity work, the organization risks
stunting the CDO’s ability to create change.
65

The work unit relationship with individuals within the institution becomes crucial, as it
paves the way for the relationship building for CDOs. As the research indicates, colleagues and
collaborators within the CDOs network can be hesitant to work with the CDO due to perceptions
about their work (Harvey, 2014; Nixon, 2017), prejudice against their racial and gender identity
(Marana, 2016; Nixon, 2017), or do not see how their work is connected to the CDOs
institutional objectives (Gravley-Stack et al., 2016; Leon, 2014) or understand the importance of
the CDOs work (Leon, 2014). Therefore, the organization must create a work unit climate that
promotes engagement with the CDO and the institution’s diversity agenda through directly
addressing the resistance and lack of DEI-related knowledge regarding the CDO’s work.

Table 11
Transactional Influences
Field goal
Create organizational support with cultural settings, practices, and organizational structures to
bolster and support the Chief Diversity Officer position in accomplishing the institution’s
diversity agenda.
Transactional influence Transactional influence assessment
Structure: The organization needs to provide
sufficient resources to meet the needs of the
college’s diversity agenda
CDOs were asked via interviews about the
nature of personnel, organizational unit, and
financial resources to support their role
Work unit climate: The organization needs to
value active engagement in the institution’s
diversity agenda
CDOs were asked via interviews about
resistance to their work

66

Individual Influences
Lastly, this section of the review will present the individual influences necessary for
Chief Diversity Officers to create organizational support with cultural settings, practices, and
organizational structures to bolster and support the CDO position in accomplishing the
institution’s diversity agenda. This section will focus on Burke-Litwin’s (1992) individual
influences of motivation, individual values, and task requirements.
Individuals Within the Organization Need to See Value in the Diversity Agenda and CDO
Role for the Campus
Burke and Litwin (1992) identify motivation and individual values as individual
influences on organizational change. In defining motivation, Clark and Estes (2008) discussed
three indexes: (a) active choice, (b) persistence, and (c) mental effort. Each of these components
of motivation offer opportunities or pitfalls in increasing, sustaining, or decreasing an
individual’s motivation in a specific work goal. In this regard, motivation links an individual’s
own values to the task at hand, as they see that task related to the larger goals of the organization.
Task value theory (Pintrich, 2003) indicates that an individual’s motivation, and in turn an
individual’s performance, will be enhanced if the individual is interested in the task (intrinsic
value), sees utility in the task (extrinsic value), internalizes the importance of the task (attainment
value), and see that the benefits of the task outweigh the costs of the task (cost value). Therefore,
by addressing an individual’s orientation to their work goal where individuals can identify the
task value of their work, an organization can promote higher individual performance.
As mentioned in the transactional influences, the CDO’s rely on collaboration for their
success. Therefore, the experience of resistance to the CDOs work or collaboration with the
CDO may be attributed to these constituents assigning low task value to their work with CDO or
67

towards the institution’s diversity agenda. One way CDOs address this is through their
accountability strategies, identified in Table 9 (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). In this way, the
CDO creates incentives or structures to increase task value. For example, one strategy is to
infuse diversity into individual performance evaluations, therefore promoting utility value and
attainment value in participating in reaching the institution’s diversity goals. Moreover, the
strategy of developing a campus-wide, decentralized diversity plan relates to a CDO’s
constituents’ ability to see the connection of their work goals to the larger institution’s diversity
goals in order to establish attainment value. Kezar (2007b) also identified motivational
components in leadership for institutionalizing a diversity agenda. Kezar identified providing
incentives and rewards (utility value and cost value) as part of the implementation phase of
diversity leadership, meant to impact behavior within the organization. Without the ability to
assign task value to integrate diversity work into their own work goals, individuals within a
CDO’s organization can create a barrier to the CDO’s effectiveness in the organization.
Individuals Within the Organization Need to Know the Basic Facts, Information, and
Terminology Regarding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Another individual influence in Burke and Litwin’s (1992) organizational change model
relates to the knowledge needed by constituents and stakeholders within the institution for
change to occur. This can be seen as the match between an individual’s knowledge and skillset
with the task assigned to that individual. Krathwol (2002) provided four categories by which we
can understand components of knowledge. The first is factual knowledge, which is knowledge
that is characterized by basic facts, information, and terminology related to a subject matter. The
second is conceptual knowledge. This type of knowledge refers to understanding broader
concepts and the connection between concepts. The next type of knowledge Krathwol described
68

is procedural knowledge. This type of knowledge is defined by possessing the knowledge of how
to conduct and take action on processes. Last, metacognitive knowledge is the ability to use other
types of knowledge to strategize, assess, plan, and adjust where necessary. Each type of
knowledge builds upon one another, with a deeper understanding and critical thinking necessary
as the types progress in complexity.
Modeled by the CDO’s own necessary mastery of diversity knowledge skills (Williams &
Wade-Golden, 2013), the CDO’s constituents and collaborators must also possess factual,
conceptual, and procedural knowledge related to diversity and the institution’s diversity agenda.
This is most evident from Williams and Wade-Golden’s (2013) identification of educational
strategies used by the CDO to create change. As seen in Table 9, CDOs employ strategies to
educate students, faculty, and staff through various training programs, workshops, and education
to understanding how diversity impacts processes and procedures within the institution (such as
hiring and the curriculum). Again, noting the importance of collaboration, CDOs can experience
resistance or lack of motivation from colleagues and constituents who lack the knowledge of
diversity and equity in higher education (Leon, 2014; Wilson, 2013).

69

Table 12
Individual Influences
Field goal
Create organizational support with cultural settings, practices, and organizational structures to
bolster and support the Chief Diversity Officer position in accomplishing the institution’s
diversity agenda.
Individual influence Individual influence assessment
Motivation and individual values—
Individuals need to see value in the tasks
associated with the diversity agenda.
CDOs were asked via interviews regarding
how their constituents and collaborators saw
the importance of the CDO’s role and work.
Task requirements/individual skills and
abilities
Factual knowledge: Individuals need to know
the basic facts, information, and
terminology regarding diversity, equity, and
inclusion.
Conceptual knowledge: Individuals need to
know the concepts of Inclusive Excellence
and Critical Race Theory.
Procedural knowledge: Individuals need to
know the process of implementing Inclusive
Excellence and institutionalizing a diversity
agenda.
CDOs were asked via interviews what
knowledge or skills CDOs viewed as needed
on their campus partners to engage in the
work of the college’s diversity agenda.

Conclusion
The problem of practice addressed by this literature review the issue of organizational
resistance in supporting the role of the CDO in U.S. higher education limiting their ability to
70

impact institutional change. In this chapter, the review provided literature regarding the historical
and current landscape of diversity within U.S. higher education. This section included landmark
Supreme Court cases related to affirmative action, an overview of research on the educational
value of diversity, and a discussion of racial campus climate. The review also provided an
overview of language and models used to organize higher education diversity agendas and the
leadership strategies utilized to institutionalize a campus diversity agenda. Additionally, the
review described the emergence and composition of the CDO role in U.S. higher education and
the complex structures and collaborative nature of the role. The review concluded with applying
of the Burke-Litwin Change Model to the problem of practice to provide a conceptual framework
for the study. Chapter Three will review the methodology used to address the problem of practice
for this study.

71

Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter Two provided a review of the literature, giving the context to this study on
organizational resistance and chief diversity officers within small liberal arts colleges. This
chapter will present the research design data collection and analysis methods for this study.
Additionally, future sections will discuss the participating stakeholders, sampling criteria, data
collection methods, instrumentation, and analysis. The chapter concludes with a description of
the credibility and trustworthiness of this study, followed by a discussion of ethical
considerations.
Purpose of the Study
This qualitative study examined the influence of transformational, transactional, and
individual organizational factors on the effectiveness of the CDO position within small liberal
arts colleges. The project goal was to understand the experiences of chief diversity officers
through experiential knowledge (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002) to gain insights regarding how
colleges and universities can provide enhanced organizational support for the CDO position.
Research Questions
Given the purpose of this study, the following questions guided this study:
1. What is the nature of the transformational organizational elements that influence the
CDO’s ability to impact institutional change?
2. What is the nature of the transactional organizational elements that influence the CDO’s
ability to impact institutional change?
3. What individual skills, abilities, needs, and values facilitate the CDO’s ability to impact
institutional change?

72

Conceptual Framework
Research regarding the CDO in higher education is limited, focusing primarily on
organizational structure and the CDO’s experience within their organization. A conceptual
framework provides a lens to focus on the interconnected relationship between the organizational
elements providing the context of the CDO role. The Burke-Litwin (1992) Organizational
Change Model was used to guide the conceptual framework and focus on the stakeholder group
of CDOs in small liberal arts colleges.
The Burke-Litwin Organizational Change Model was utilized to develop the
transformational, transactional, and individual organizational influences on the stakeholder goal
(Burke & Litwin, 1992). The assumed transformational influences are Mission & Strategy,
Leadership, and Organizational Culture. A review of the literature revealed that key
transformational elements regarding the CDO role include the college implementation a strategic
plan of inclusive excellence (Williams et al., 2005), a college president leveraging of their
leadership to assist in driving the college’s diversity agenda (Kezar, 2007a, 2007b; Kezar &
Eckel, 2008; Kezar et al., 2008), and a college culture of Inclusive Excellence (Williams et al.,
2005). The assumed transactional influences are Structure and Work Unit Climate. A review of
the literature revealed that transactional influences most integral to the CDO role are the
financial and human resources are available to CDOs (Gravley-Stack et al., 2016; Leon, 2014;
Nixon, 2017). Additionally, the campus climate must promote participation in the college’s
diversity agenda (Cooper, 2014; Douglas & Little, 2017; Leon, 2014; Williams & Wade-Golden,
2013; Wilson, 2013). Lastly, the assumed individual influences are Motivation, Individual
Values, and Task Requirements/Individual Skills and Abilities. A review of the literature
revealed that individual stakeholders must value collaboration with the CDO (Leon, 2014;
73

Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013; Wilson, 2013) and possess the skills and knowledge to
understand why and how stakeholders would work with the CDO regarding the college’s
diversity agenda.
Participating Stakeholders
The focus of this study was on CDOs within higher education. CDOs are defined as
executive-level college officials tasked with leading and managing the college’s diversity agenda
(Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013). While some CDOs might have this specific title, some
diversity officers with executive-level rankings may have different official titles at their college.
In order to include these CDOs with alternative titles, the participants of this study will need to
meet following criteria.
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale 1
Individuals should be employed by a small liberal arts college. This focus will allow the
research to highlight the transformational, transactional organizational elements within a small
institution, serving no more than 3,000 undergraduate students.
Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale 2
Individuals should possess a senior level position, reporting to either the president or
chancellor or to a vice president or division head. As a senior-level officer, this individual should
be tasked with leading and managing the college’s diversity agenda. This criterion addresses the
institutional role and change expected of this position within higher education.
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
This study utilized a purposeful sampling strategy followed by “snowball sampling”
whereby participants who easily meet the criteria of the study are recruited through specific
directories and subsequently were asked to assist with recruiting others who match the criteria to
74

also participate in the interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Data saturation for qualitative
studies are reached when no new themes emerge from the data analysis (Creswell & Creswell,
2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Morse, 1995). Additionally, Guest et al. (2006) have found that
saturation can be reached as early as 12 participants. To this end, the study aimed to include 10
to 15 CDOs. The participants shall be recruited by direct email to officers meeting the criteria at
small liberal arts colleges. Additionally, the study recruited participants who met the criteria
through the listserv and social media groups of organizations such as the National Association of
Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) and additional professional listservs. I also
asked any participants to refer her to any other officers who met the criteria of the study. All of
the participants referred me to the professional association listservs, adding no new information.
The recruitment efforts of this study yielded 10 Chief Diversity Officers from small liberal arts
colleges within the United States; through data analysis, saturation was reached when no new
themes were found during the 10th participant’s interview.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study aimed to understand the nature of the transformational, transactional, and
individual organizational influences contributing to the effectiveness of the CDO position in
small liberal arts colleges; therefore, a qualitative study was appropriate. Additionally, given that
the CDO role is focused on the work of diversity and equity within higher education (Williams &
Wade-Golden, 2007) and often experience oppression based on their social identities in their role
(Nixon, 2017). The study used interviewing through the lens of counter-storytelling, a critical
race methodology aimed at providing a research method that challenges racism, sexism, and
classism (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Critical race methodology views experiences as strength
and knowledge, which is facilitated through direct interviewing of CDOs. While the nature of the
75

study might benefit from a case study approach involving multiple stakeholders and document
analysis, providing the perspective and voice of CDOs, often people of color experiencing
racism in their positions (Nixon, 2017), engages in counter-story telling which centers the
experience of CDOs in the dominant culture within higher education (Ladson-Billings & Tate,
2006).
For this study, one-time interviews were conducted with each participant, with the
possibility of additional interviews with each participant if more information is needed after
reviewing initial data. The interviews were semi-structured in nature, during which flexibility in
wording and order of the interview questions was deployed (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
semi-structured nature of the interview protocol allowed for the information gathered from
interviewees to be guided by a set of interview questions and real-time response and depth of
worldview to emerge from the interview. The interview consisted of three types of interview
questions: demographics/background, experience and behavior, and opinion and values. The
demographic/background questions provided data related to individual skills and abilities to
establish demographic data related to the study’s sampling criteria (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The experience and behavior questions solicited data related to the transformational and
transactional elements, by focusing on the interviewee’s individual actions and activities
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The opinion and values questions will provide data regarding
individual values and organizational mission and strategy, where questions will focus on the
interviewees’ individual opinions and beliefs regarding their organization. There were 16
interview questions (Appendix B), which tie back to the main organizational influences.
The study conducted the interviews using the Zoom online video application, where
digital recordings and transcription were captured. Occurring during the December 2020 through
76

February 2021, the 10 interviews of CDOs took approximately 60 minutes and took place
individually, online. As the interview protocol calls for interviewees to potentially share sensitive
information regarding the interviewee’s organization, online face-to-face video interviews
allowed rapport building and greater access to a wide range of participants due to unrestrictive
physical location restrictions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Though the Zoom application will
provide a digital recording, I took real time notes to also collect the data. The video recording
and notetaking recording of the interviews were used to derive verbatim transcription of the
interview, while I signaled the importance of the information shared by the interviewee through
notetaking.
Data Analysis
Data analysis occurred throughout the data collection process. I wrote analytic memos
after each interview with the Chief Diversity Officers. I documented my initial thoughts and
conclusions about the data in relation to my conceptual framework and research questions,
specifically the transformational, transactional, and individual organizational elements as
identified by the Burke-Litwin model (1992). Following each interview, a transcription services
transcribed and coded each audio recording of the interviews. In the first phase of analysis, I
used open coding, looking for empirical codes and applying a priori codes from the conceptual
framework. I conducted a second phase of analysis where empirical and a priori codes are
aggregated into analytic/axial codes. In the third phase of data analysis I identified pattern codes
and themes that emerged in relation to the conceptual framework and study’s research questions.

77

Credibility and Trustworthiness
In order to maintain the credibility and trustworthiness of this qualitative study, I had
adequate engagement in data collection and utilized peer review and rich, thick descriptions. I
achieved saturation of data through adequate engagement in the data collection, where discrepant
and negative cases were provided (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Additionally, the peer review process ensured that the data was examined by fellow scholars for
researcher bias, congruence in initial themes from the raw data, and preliminary interpretations
by me (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Lastly, I provided rich, thick descriptions through detailed
descriptions of the participants and direct quotes from interview respondents (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
To meet the ethical standards for research, the study took various precautions to maintain
the confidentiality and privacy of all interview respondents (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Interview respondents were provided an information sheet prior to their participation in the
interviews, which included verbiage stating that participation in the study was voluntary and no
negative consequences would from declining to participate. The form specifically asked the
respondent for permission to record the interview through video, audio, and notetaking
documentation. Additionally, the statement informed the respondent that the interview’s
confidentiality will be preserved by removing all identifying factors from transcripts and
recordings and utilizing pseudonyms to replace identifiers. The recordings and transcripts were
saved in a password-protected, encrypted online folder. Once transcripts were complete and
accurate, I deleted all videos. Pseudonyms with their matching identifiers were saved separately
from transcripts and recordings in a locked filing cabinet in my private residence.
78

To further establish the integrity of the study, I continually examined her positionality
and bias (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The context of this study is higher education, specifically in
small liberal arts colleges. Though I have a career background as a diversity officer in higher
education, I am currently working within seventh through 12th grade independent school. While
there is no direct power dynamic between me and the interview subjects, the interview protocol
yielded data that was sometimes critical of the participant’s employer, institution, or colleagues.
Therefore, interview subjects may have been fearful of repercussions if anonymity and
confidentiality was not maintained (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). These concerns were addressed
above through the secure storage of data and the removal of identifiers. As the integrity of the
study was also dependent upon avoiding the exploitation of subjects (Creswell & Creswell,
2018), the overall findings and recommendations of the study will be available to participants to
assist with advocating for additional institutional support for their CDO role.
My background as a former college diversity officer was cause for potential assumptions
and bias regarding the issues of organizational resistance in support of the CDO role
Additionally, as a Black-Filipinx, queer woman, I may hold a bias against institutions of higher
education, where these social identities have historically been underrepresented or marginalized
in terms of institutional and systemic oppression. I addressed this personal connection to the
subject matter through avoiding reporting only affirming results (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

79

Chapter Four: Findings
This study aimed to understand the experience of Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) with
organizational resistance in small liberal arts colleges in the United States. The current study
explored the following research questions outlined in Chapter One:
1. What is the nature of the transformational organizational elements that influence a CDO's
ability to impact institutional change?
2. What is the nature of the transactional organizational elements that influence the CDO's
ability to impact institutional change?
3. What individual skills, abilities, needs, and values facilitate the CDO's ability to impact
change?
Based on the methodology described in Chapter Three, this qualitative study utilized 10 semi-
structured interviews that were approximately 60 minutes in length per participant. This chapter
will present the data findings and analysis is presented by the research questions and the Burke-
Litwin Framework (1992) of transformational, transactional, and individual organizational
elements influencing the CDO.
Participants
This study utilized a snowball sampling method, which yielded 10 Chief Diversity
Officer participants from small liberal arts colleges in the United States. Participants were
selected based on the criteria determined in Chapter Three. Each CDO participated in an
internet-recorded video interview. Participants were assigned a pseudonym to protect their
identity in the study. Additionally, I also assigned standard names to offices and departments
referenced by the CDOs to protect the participants' identity. All of the participants served as the
most senior officer with diversity, inclusion, and equity responsibilities at their institution.
80

Four participants identified as male, five identified as female, and one identified as male-
gender queer. In terms of racial background, three identified as Asian or Asian American, four
identified as Black, and three identified as more than one race or ethnicity as noted in Table 13.
All but two participants were from a college on the East Coast of the United States. In terms of
years of experience in their current positions, the participants' range was from less than a year
upwards to six years.

81

Table 13
Sociodemographic Characteristics of Participants
CDO Gender Racial/Ethnic
background
Geographic
location
Institution type Number of
years in
position
Norman Male Asian East Coast Private small liberal
arts college
2 years
Ken Male Asian East Coast Private small liberal
arts college
5 years
Lydia Female Black South Private small liberal
arts college
5 years
Brian Male Black East Coast Private small liberal
arts college
5 years
Nick Male,
gender
queer

Biracial, White,
and Latinx
East Coast Public small liberal
arts college
4 years
Claire Female Biracial, Black,
and White
East Coast Private small liberal
arts college
3 years
Devin Male Asian
American
East Coast Private faith-based
small liberal arts
college
6 years
Melissa Female Black East Coast Private small liberal
arts college

Selena Female Puerto Rican-
Greek
East Coast Private small liberal
arts college
< 1 year
Anna Female Black Midwest Private small liberal
arts college
4.5 years

Research Question 1: What Is the Nature of the Transformational Organizational
Elements that Influence the CDO’s Ability to Impact Institutional Change?
The first research question focuses on the transformational organizational elements
related to the interview findings. This section of the chapter reviews three influences rooted in
the transformational organizational elements. The transformational influences are (a) the guiding
82

role of strategic plan and diversity planning for the CDO, (b) the leadership role of the President
in supporting the CDO’s work, and (c) the promotion of an inclusive excellence culture.
Guiding Role of Strategic Planning and Diversity Planning for CDO
All 10 CDOs were asked about their respective colleges’ strategic plan with diversity-
related items or diversity strategic plan. Eight of the CDOs described having some form of an
institutional strategic plan or diversity strategic plan that influenced their work to some extent.
The CDOs provided timelines for the plans, how their role contributed to the plan, and the level
to which these plans guided their role as CDOs. Additionally, five of the 10 CDOs specifically
referenced the role of the summer of 2020, during which the murders of Black Americans such
as George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade, and Ahmaud Arbery received national
attention and sparked global protests and advocacy for the Black Lives Matter movement. CDOs
highlighted how the summer of 2020 was the cause for colleges renewing their commitments in
established strategic plans or developing new action plans specifically focused on anti-racist
practices.
For Norman, his institution had a college-wide strategic plan with several themes dating
back 5 years. He stated this plan assisted the former CDO “building up the office and expanding
the scope” of the CDO office. From here, Norman said that he was charged as the new CDO to
develop a strategic plan to advance equity and inclusion. Citing the national response to the
summer of 2020, Norman shared that his institution experienced an “increased sense of urgency”
in developing the equity and inclusions strategic plan. Focusing on racial justice, Norman
described the plan as “a living document” that went through public comment and contains 37
items for action. Norman also shared that data from climate surveys and student demands from
2019 to 2020 also informed the creation of this plan toward racial justice.
83

In contrast, Ken shared that his institution had an academic strategic plan with diversity
related items throughout the different components of the plan. When asked how these diversity
items were added to the plan, Ken said “we stacked the deck, of course, in terms of the
committee,” alluding to the fact that many faculty of color were involved in the steering
committee for the plan. Though not part of the strategic plan’s steering committee, Ken noted
that it was his job to implement the plan. Like Norman, Ken also referenced how the murders of
Black Americans during the summer of 2020 pushed forward more initiatives from the plan.
While acknowledging what the strategic plan had accomplished thus far, Ken also noted that
some initiatives came to a halt given that, “People are tired. We don’t have time really.”
For Brian, his institution completed the strategic planning process in 2016, with elements
of diversity and inclusion, though these items were not “elaborated on.” Brian stated that his
campus utilized “full participation” as the conceptual framework undergirding the diversity and
inclusion work of the strategic plan. With this framework, Brian engaged in an 18-month long
process of developing the Equity and Inclusion Action Plan, which included committee work and
assessments of current work being done around equity and inclusion by the college. Similar to
Norman and Ken, Brian also stated that the Plan, which was approved in 2019, proved valuable
in response to the summer of 2020 when many were asking how the institution could respond to
the call for racial justice, a section of the plan that was also expanded to include “the specifics of
anti-Black racism on campus.” Unlike Brian, Nick stated that although diversity and inclusion
were named as a strategic priority in the 2017 strategic plan for the college, Nick “[has] not been
able to get to that as much as I would because to go to your topic, there isn’t a lot of
organizational support.” However, Nick went on to acknowledge that the diversity items from
the strategic plan were used to develop the equity action plan for his institution, similar to
84

Brian’s Equity and Inclusion Action Plan. While Anna’s institution had no current strategic plan,
Anna, like Brian, also shared that an anti-racism plan was developed and supported by her
institutions board of trustees in response to the “global rising for racial justice” because of
murders in the 2020 summer.
For Claire’s institution, student leadership and activists called for “top down” leadership
regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion, which resulted in the 2014 strategic plan for diversity.
Claire’s CDO position was the direct result of the 2014 – 2019 diversity strategic plan. Claire
stated that although out of the 2019 timeframe of the plan, in the summer of 2020, the President
asked Claire to examine what items from the diversity strategic plan were not met and what were
the possible barriers to accomplishing those items. Similar to Norman, Ken, and Brian, Claire
believed that the intention of this review was so that these unfinished items could be added to the
college’s institutional strategic plan. Similar to Claire, Melissa also described her institution’s
2014- 2019 diversity plan, which she was currently also assessing. However, Melissa said there
was also an institution wide strategic plan with DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) elements,
which addressed the end of the 2019 timeframe ending in terms of strategic work for DEI.
Devin described being charged with items from three different types of strategic plans:
one being the DEI plan, another being an anti-racism plan, and the last being a college-wide
institutional strategic plan. Devin spoke about the strategy of his role in the creation of the DEI
Plan, stating that it was not meant to be a “standalone DEI plan because that’s when those plans
can be ignored.” Instead, Devin advocated for building DEI into the long-term strategic planning
efforts of the institution, to build support from the board of trustees both in advocacy and
financial support. Devin shared that at the time of the interview, his institution was beginning the
strategic planning process; however, the plan was upended due to the impact of the COVID 19
85

pandemic on the college. Devin also discussed how he utilized the DEI plan to address
procedures and policies on campus related to DEI and build relationships with student leaders
and faculty to solicit campus wide support.
Selena and Lydia were the two CDOs who did not indicate a specific strategic plan or
diversity plan for their colleges; however, both CDOs discussed other mission-driven items that
guided institutional DEI work. In the absence of a strategic plan, Selena referenced a “series of
in-depth recommendations” which were determined before the start of her role. Seeing these
recommendations more as a “roadmap,” Selena stated that her institution strives to take rapid
action on these “series of commitments” and “roadmaps and metrics.” In the absence of a
strategic plan for Lydia, she discussed more the role of her college’s mission statement which
guided the number of students of color expected to be part of the institution’s demographic based
on the historical commitments to Black students in the area.
All 10 of the CDOs described how the strategic plan provided institutional direction for
the CDO and for the college, however they also reported varying levels of fidelity or investment
in these plans by their institution. The findings also indicate that an external event, such as the
summer of 2020 that brought national attention to racial justice and anti-racism practices, could
have great influence on revisiting, revising, or regenerating institutional diversity planning. With
five of the 10 CDO speaking on the influence of the summer of 2020 national attention on racial
injustice, the findings support the permeable nature of the organization. Additionally, three of the
10 CDOs also discussed the role of students and student activism in the creation or revisiting of
diversity strategic planning. In this regard, for higher education, students also serve as a
boundary spanner (Safford & et al., 2017), where the students’ role in organizational change
serves both as information producers and users. In terms of the findings, student demands serve
86

as information that propelled institutional change, while students are also one group of
benefactors from the institutional change. The findings in this theme also call attention to the role
of the President in driving and propelling diversity plans forward at the college.
The Leadership Role of the President
Though nine of CDOs discussed the role of the president in accomplishing their CDO
goals, they discussed a variety of examples demonstrating the nature of the support. Despite the
variety in descriptions, the findings generally indicate that the CDOs view the role of the
president as vital in their success. Selena best summarized the president’s role and the necessary
competency of the president as it relates to the CDO role, stating,
[DEI work] has to be central to the mission of the president. The president has to see that
[DEI] work is not an add-on. It's essentially integral to the future of the institution in how
any initiative rolls out. So, it has to be wound in. I actually think we need more CDOs
who go on to be presidents, because in an ideal world a president leads an institution with
DEI as their ... It's woven into everything that they do. It's a set of competencies that I
feel like every president now should have. And if the CDO role were to ever go away, it's
because we have developed presidents who have the capacity to function not as an
afterthought or as a special initiative or as an aside… I think that a president like the one I
work for, who sees the importance of the work and takes it seriously and understands that
it has to be integrated into everything the institution is doing, and also doesn't just foist it
on the CDO but acts as a partner, it really makes a huge difference in the work.
Selena’s quote highlights the president’s role in partnering with the CDO to create institutional
change, not only through their leadership but also through having the similar competencies to the
87

CDO in regard to DEI work. While the CDOs varied in their descriptions of presidential support,
active presidential leadership emerged as a key finding in support for the CDO’s work.
Sets Institutional Priorities
Six of the CDOs discussed the president’s role in setting priorities for the college. The
president sets the priorities through leveraging their position to support initiatives or provide
institutional direction congruent with the CDO’s task of accomplishing the college’s diversity
agenda. For example, Ken described his president as “supportive” and “open” to DEI work. Ken
shared that the president made decisions and actively understood the goals of initiatives such as a
commission related to increasing faculty of color on campus. Ken’s president also directly
funded a faculty of color caucus at their institution. Similarly, Brian also discussed creating the
president’s DEI council with the president, designing the group so that it would be representative
of different aspects of the college.
Norman shared that his president marshalled a day-off for faculty, staff, and students to
engage in a day devoted to equity and inclusion. Lydia described her president’s role in taking
responsibility for the college’s history in serving students of color in the region. Selena discussed
her president’s role in the creation of her position. She described her president as “interested in
pretty rapid changes” regarding recommendations for the DEI agenda at their campus. Selena
also shared that her president was invested in breaking up of silos and promoting collaboration.
Regarding mitigating resistance, Lydia shared the president’s support prevented her
colleagues from “going around” her regarding DEI matters. Additionally, Selena stated that the
president played an important role in combatting resistance to changing inequitable policy,
stating “you have to have the president on board.” When asked about the role of the president in
achieving her goals as a CDO, Anna stated, “I think having the president use his bully pulpit to
88

emphasize the importance of these issues is critical.” She also mentioned that her president has
two marginalized identities, and as such was “very involved” in issues regarding these identities
where he was “his authentic self and showing diversity and embracing that.”
For Ken, Lydia, Brian, Selena, and Anna, the president utilized positional power to set
priorities aligned with the CDO’s goals. However, Nick shared how his president’s ability to set
priorities instead called into question Nick’s work as a CDO. Nick’s relationship with his
president involved being asked why he was reviving the TRIO program (a federal outreach and
student support program geared toward services for underserved student populations); the
president was resistant to student protests and conflicts. Nick described the president of “talking
out of both sides of his mouth.” While Nick described liking the president individually, he
described him as “a clueless white man who thinks he gets it and has a white male savior
complex.”
Structures and Directs the Senior Leadership Team
Of the 10 CDOs, four CDOs spoke of the president’s role leading through structuring and
providing direction to the senior leadership team, executive leaders for their respective divisions
of the college. Norman shared that after two failed searches for the CDO position at his
institution, his president asked him to fill the role due to his experience with the Teaching and
Learning Center and having had 5 years as a faculty member. The president also mandated a
two-hour retreat focused on the diversity strategic plan of the institution with the senior
leadership team at Norman’s request.
Similar to Norman, Lydia also shared that her president specifically asked her to serve as
CDO, particularly after the president recognized Lydia providing leadership in DEI work at her
college. Lydia shared that her president was receptive to her ideas such as reexamining the
89

makeup of the senior leadership team, which was mostly white, to consider candidates of color.
When asked about key factors that supported institutional change that Lydia created, she named
leadership as a crucial factor, listing the president as a key player alongside the senior leadership
team.
When asked about his supervisory relationship with the president, Brian said “I think is
essential, I don't think I would be able to do half the things I've done, if I didn't report to the
president.” Brian provided the example of the president’s ability to instruct other senior staff to
take action DEI items as recommended by Brian.
Claire shared that her president had served formerly as the provost. Claire described
having the provost and president’s support as “really important” particularly in being included in
conversations related to DEI and providing training and workshop opportunities to the senior
leadership team. Without their support, Claire shared that her ability to have DEI work on the
senior leadership team agenda would be limited.
Utilizes the CDO’s Advisement
Another aspect of the president’s leadership role was heeding the council and expertise
provided by the CDO. In this regard, if the president utilized positional power by heeding the
advisement or utilizing the expertise of their CDO. For example, Melissa shared that she has “a
very positive, clear, collaborative working relationship” with her president. As such Melissa
shared that her president wanted to “not only to listen to what I have to say but to really lean into
some of the advice that I have.” Attributing the nature of their relationship to the “rapport that we
build over time,” Melissa shared that her president trusted her and provided a “pretty good kind
of a mentoring relationship.”
90

In contrast to the rapport between Melissa and her president, Nick stated that the
resistance he encountered in his CDO role often came from his president in the form of “lowered
expectations,” stating, “Resistance looks like questioning me about my thoughts when he doesn't
do that with my white colleagues. It's about... And this is what's hard, is it's not resistance. It's
pigeonholing me and putting me in a box.” Additionally, Nick described an incident where a
black student was harassed off campus by three white men regarding the 2020 election; Nick
highlighted that it was nine hours before he was contacted by his president, despite the nature of
his role as CDO.
The findings in this theme indicate that the president’s role is to provide top-level
leadership in promoting the DEI agenda by setting priorities for the college, structuring and
directing the senior leadership team, and taking trusted council from the CDO in order to create
alignment in decision-making and support for institutional change. As a transformational
organizational element which supports the transactional elements of the Burke-Litwin Model, the
role of the president also emerges in the transactional organizational element of supervision of
the CDO. With the ability to set the leadership trajectory of the diversity agenda for the college,
the president also can assist in promoting a culture of inclusive excellence alongside the CDO.
Frameworks for Facilitating an Inclusive Excellence Culture
All of the Chief Diversity Officers were asked how they promote inclusive excellence
within their college. As described in Table 5, the formal Inclusive Excellence Change Model
describes aspects of the AACU Inclusive Excellence framework that can be used to guide an
institution’s diversity agenda (Williams et al., 2005). However, in discussing their understanding
of inclusive excellence, CDOs discussed either using the formal Inclusive Excellence Change
Model or using an alternative framework to promote an institutional culture of inclusive
91

excellence as a larger concept. Nick, Melissa, and Selena described how their efforts as a CDO
was a major driving force for building inclusive excellence culture. While Brian and Claire
described their institutions as not using the Inclusive Excellence Model, they utilized other
frameworks to facilitate an inclusive excellence culture at the college. While each CDO had
varied relationships with the specific Inclusive Excellence Model, the findings indicate that all of
the CDOs discussed having a framework to guide institutional culture as a facilitator in building
an inclusive excellence culture.
CDO-Driven Inclusive Excellence
Nick and Melissa provided more detailed answers regarding how they promote Inclusive
Excellence on their campus. Nick, for examples, said that he promoted it “systematically.” He
described the data collection process as an important component of his approach, where he used
quantitative and qualitative data to understand inequitable outcomes for students. Nick also
highlighted his work with student voices as part of the data he used to drive inclusive excellence,
where the DEI committee for the college would follow up in adopting more equitable practices
in their respective departments. Melissa shared that inclusive excellence was promoted through,
…Doing things like lead workshops on campus, celebrate and highlight people who were
doing excellent things, promote women and people of colors work and highlight their
work and celebrate it, lift up our students, talk about spaces that folks have been able to
share together and some of the work that they’re doing. So doing a lot of celebratory
things, but also some educating on campus and then some initiative creating. So like,
helping people and supporting projects that folks are doing that relate to DEI work.
We’re doing this at multiple areas, our civic engagement work, our teaching work, our
92

research and scholarship work and also in our relationship building. And all of that is
actually happening through an initiative that I created on campus.
In this quote, Melissa describes a holistic picture of inclusive excellence at her institution,
specifically connecting inclusive excellence to what she has created at her college through her
CDO role.
Selena discussed the role of her college’s Teaching and Learning Center, which focused
on inclusive pedagogy which she highlighted as important for her college’s student body who
she described as “very driven in terms of academics” in a “highly competitive academic
environment.” Similar to Nick, Selena also highlighted the role of assessment and data in
inclusive excellence. She named the importance of an “informed approach” and being able to
measure if DEI innovations and initiatives were “actually doing anything.” Selena uniquely
described the role of meritocracy in promoting inclusive excellence, stating,
Then the other part I think of inclusive excellence is that you have a clear understanding
of the myth of meritocracy across the institution and that those mythologies, like I said,
are really deep in higher education, particularly schools like where I work, and that how
we cultivate excellence has to be attended through this idea that meritocracy is not real
and that what you have to center is access and equity so that everybody has an
opportunity who’s the small number that are going to enter our institution to fully realize
their potential and not encountering barriers to participate, full participation. And the
elimination of those micro-barriers is a really important part of I think inclusive
excellence.
93

Selena’s quote articulates the idea that promoting inclusive excellence cannot happen without
revisioning the notion of excellence, which has historically been rooted in the myth of
meritocracy and not accessible to those of marginalized backgrounds.
Alternative Frameworks to Promote Inclusive Excellence Culture
When asked about Inclusive Excellence at his institution, Brian shared that prior to his
tenure as CDO, the institution moved away from the Inclusive Excellence Model to Full
Participation. Brian shared that faculty leadership at his institution had viewed Inclusive
Excellence as still maintaining a level of power at the table, whereas the Full Participation
framework was more based on “co-creating, constructing the table together and letting it be all of
our table.” In his personal view, Brian saw Full Participation as “aspirational” and Inclusive
Excellence as “even harder to achieve.” Similarly, Claire described that the term “inclusive
excellence” was raised by the President, however after criticisms were raised, her college had not
“talked about it nearly as much.” However, Claire also noted “I think the principle of it is talked
about, and I think aimed for…I think inclusive excellence, even if we don’t call it that, I think
it’s still underlying what we want to do.” To expand on this point, Claire provided an example of
the President’s DEI Council leading the college in conversations to “rewrite or redefine our
diversity mission statement for the college.” Claire went on to say,
I think that’s meant to be an exercise that will infuse ideas of inclusive excellence into the
dialogue. The idea being that our diversity is a strength and that we cannot be excellent
without being diverse, and inclusive, and equitable without leveraging the full benefit of
the diversity that makes up the college community. I think that model does underlie what
we want to achieve. Where I don’t think we are yet, where I’d really like us to get to, is
creating more measurable goals and assessing them.
94

In this quote, Claire shares that although inclusive excellence has been critiqued by her college,
inclusive excellence still undergirds DEI efforts while still falling short in having measurable
outcomes.
While each CDO described a range of relationships to the Inclusive Excellence Model,
CDOs discussed how having a framework facilitated an institutional culture of inclusive
excellence. As such, the findings in this section might infer that providing a framework can
facilitate building an inclusive excellence culture and may provide additional support for the
CDO in creating institutional change. The findings for the first research question indicate that
promotion of a culture of inclusive excellence paired with strong Presidential support for the
CDO and a clearly articulated and timely strategic diversity plan can provide support for the
CDO at the transformational organizational level. These transformational elements then set the
overarching and driving foundation for the transactional and subsequent individual
organizational elements.
Research Question 2: What Is the Nature of the Transactional Organizational Elements
That Influence the CDO’s Ability to Impact Institutional Change?
The second research question for this study focuses on the transactional organizational
elements for the interviewed Chief Diversity Officers. In this regard, the next influences focus on
the transactional organizational elements: (1) the importance of reporting to the president, titles,
and access to the Senior Leadership Team, (2) inconsistency in resources for the CDO, and (3)
campus partners’ resistance to change policy and procedures.

95

Importance of Reporting to the President, Titles, and Access to the Senior Leadership
Team
The chief diversity officers in this study also discussed the role of their supervisor and
reporting line as an influence upon their ability to do their work. As seen in Table 14, of the 10
participants, four reported to the chief academic officer or provost of their college, while the
other six reported to the President of the college. In discussing the supervisory reporting lines,
the chief diversity officers also often referenced two other factors: 1) their titles and 2) access or
serving on the President’s Senior Leadership Team and how this access shaped their ability to do
their work. This section will present findings based on to whom the CDO reported and how this
reporting structure influenced their ability to accomplish their work as a CDO.

96

Table 14
CDO Reporting Structure and Vertical Structures
Interviewed CDO To whom the CDO reports Archetype of CDO
vertical structure
Norman President Portfolio divisional
Ken Provost with dotted line to the president Collaborative officer
Lydia President Unit based
Brian President Portfolio divisional
Nick President Unit based
Claire Provost Collaborative officer
Devin Provost with dotted line to the president Portfolio divisional
Melissa Provost Portfolio divisional
Selena President Unit based
Anna President Unit based

Reporting to the Provost
Of the 10 chief diversity officers, Ken, Claire, Devin, and Melissa stated that they
reported to the chief academic officer or Provost at their college. In reporting to the provost,
these CDOs also had responsibilities in academic affairs with duties and titles that reflected their
role as the second in line following the provost over academic affairs.
Ken commented on the nature of this dual role, stating, “it's just a funny position to be in
where on the one hand, you're number two to somebody, and then you're telling them what to do
in a particular case.” This comment highlights the tension between serving under the Provost
however having responsibilities as a CDO that also impact the Provost.
Claire shared that, though her title and responsibilities were more related to her role
under the Provost, she still had access to the President through individual meetings and attending
97

senior leadership meetings. Claire also stated that she experienced difficulty initially in her
position under the Provost particularly as she was tasked with conducting trainings and
workshops for the senior leadership team. Though Claire expressed having access to and support
of the President, Claire indicated a desire to report to the president to increase access to the
President’s senior team and elevate the authority of her role: “But I think if I reported directly to
the president and I was a member of the senior staff, I think I would have more authority to be
able to get things done.”
Three of the CDOs indicated that though they reported directly to the Provost, they had a
“dotted line to the President.” In terms of this dotted line to the President, Ken described this
relationship as being on “the same page,” however, when there were instances of disagreement
between Ken and the president and where Ken could predict a “train wreck,” Ken stated that he
had “to still conduct the train as the wreck happens,” indicating the responsibility of his role as
CDO despite the decision-making power residing with the President. Ken also shared that he was
part of the President’s senior leadership team, though was unsure if this was due to being the
CDO or as the associate dean to the Provost.
Comparing his role to recently “successfully hired” CDOs at liberal arts institutions,
Devin stated that he advocated for the vice president title and reporting directly to the President.
Devin was met with disagreement, with the cited reasons for this disagreement being concerns
for a “top heavy” senior administration. However, despite these concerns stated to Devin, Devin
recalls that the director of athletics was added to the senior leadership team only months later.
Devin highlighted that this decision as incongruent with the institution’s commitment to
diversity, where students of color outnumber student athletes at his college.
98

Melissa also described a quasi-dual relationship, stating “I officially report to the Provost,
but I essentially report to the provost and the president.” As such, Melissa reported serving as
part of the President’s leadership team alongside the Provost to whom she reports. Melissa
highlighted that as part of the President’s cabinet, she served as if she was a Vice President like
her colleagues, however without the title. Unlike Devin who advocated for this title change to
Vice President, Melissa instead said “they can have that,” commenting that she would be
uninterested in this title change due to not having a unit that accompanied the title change.
Reporting to the President
Of the 10 chief diversity officers, six reported directly to the President of their institution.
Similar to the CDOs who reported to the Provost, when asked about how the nature of their
supervisory structure related to their ability to do their work, the CDOs who reported to the
President also highlighted authority and access issues related to their titles and membership on
the President’s senior leadership team.
Lydia stated that reporting to the President was “key,” explicitly stating that being able to
“sit at the big table” gave her access to the senior leadership team and have “the ear of the
President.” Lydia also shared that the reporting line to the President allowed her to give direct
and timely feedback to the President, which she was unsure would occur without the reporting
line. Commenting on what she believed was a model for the CDO position, Lydia stated “the
person should report to the president directly.” Similarly, Brian stated “I think it’s essential, I
don't think I would be able to do half the things I've done, if I didn't report to the president.”
Brian’s example of this included the President supporting his work with the colleges’
Communications department in covering student issues. Selena also described reporting to the
President as making “a huge difference” in accomplishing her goals as CDO. She went on to say
99

that with reporting to the President, “Certain things could get done, but other things could not. It
has to be central to the mission of the president.”
Norman described that during his tenure as CDO, his position was reorganized from
reporting to the dean of the college to reporting to the President. Norman shared that he had
monthly individual meetings with the President and called and emailed with her regularly and
easily. When discussing serving on the senior leadership team, Norman provided the example of
being present at the President’s senior leadership team meetings with the Vice President of
Finance and the Provost when needing to discuss diversifying the vendor pool. Norman, stating
that this vendor process affected equity, shared that “cooperation and collaboration” that was
facilitated by this structure “really helps.” Similarly, Nick stated that reporting to the President
was “important” because this structure gave him access to the senior leadership team table where
he could gather information across divisions, which he likened to the role of an ombudsman for
the campus.
The findings in this theme clearly point to the notion that the CDO is best supported
when the CDO reports to the President, has a title that is comparable to their Vice President peers
on the senior leadership team, and serves as a member of the President’s senior leadership team.
The findings indicate that those who reported to the Provost and had additional responsibilities
within the division of Academic Affairs experienced tension between their CDO role and their
“number 2” role in Academic Affairs. By reporting the President, the CDO was more likely to
experience more cooperation from the senior leadership team and other campus patterns and
possessed more authority to make decisions with the President’s support. Moreover, the CDOs
indicated that having access to the senior leadership team allowed them to provide advisement
100

related to DEI concerns and issues in the various divisions and create strategic partnerships to
create other DEI-related institutional changes.
Inconsistency in Resources for the Chief Diversity Officer
When asked about resources for their work, the CDOs interviewed commented on mostly
on their human resources but some also provided commentary on their financial resources and
campus space resources. This theme highlights how the access to human and financial resources
facilitate the CDO’s work. Of the interviews, Lydia summarizes this best in connecting the
reporting structure to the President with human and financial resources, stating,
The load of a CDO is about culture change if you're going to make a real difference. It
can't just be cosmetic. It needs to be a direct line to the president. The person needs to
have a real budget. They need to have space, staff support.
Devin furthered this point on resources in a comparison of the CDO role to hiring a new Chief
Financial Officer (CFO), stating:
They basically construct these jobs like we are some kind of magical creatures with the
ability to persuade and convey to people that why diversity work is important. And I
always pushed back on that because I'm like, do you hire a CFO and tell them that they
have no portfolio, no budget, nobody reports to them, but they have to convince every
single other goddamn vice-president on how to spend their money, and that every single
one of them can come up with their completely different financial policies. We would
never, ever, ever do that. But we do that with CDOs all the time: this is standard practice.
In this quote, Devin articulates a double standard in how other institution-wide and executive
level positions in the college are appropriately resourced; whereas for chief diversity officers,
this is less likely and situates the CDO to be expected to change institutional culture without
101

having the institutional resources. This theme explores how each CDO expressed differing
resources in their roles and how these resources influenced their work.
Human Resources for the CDO Role
I asked each CDO what positions or staff reported to the CDO, how this structure
influenced their work as CDO, and what changes they would make to this structure, if any. Two
CDOs were under the Collaborative Officer Model (characterized by having no staff beyond
sometimes an administrative assistant); four CDOs were under a Unit-based Model
(characterized by having staff such as administrative support and professional programming or
research staff support); and the remaining four were under the Portfolio Divisional Model
(characterized as having the same support as the Unit-based Model and additionally has several
direct-reporting college departments or a divisional infrastructure). Regardless of the model of
the CDOs, all but two of the CDOs interviewed indicated that they would add staffing to the
vertical reporting line. This common thread of the need for human resources is best articulated
by Norman, one the Portfolio Divisional Model CDOs, who stated,
Everybody that I talked to in my world says that it's so wonderful that a small college that
you have four staff members. …. The old idea of a shop of one is no good. You can't get
enough done. It's just too hard. I think one of the reasons why there's so much turnover in
this position is that people just don't have what they need to succeed. Like I said, I'm still
midflight, only one-and-a-half years into this. I feel like we're on a good path, partly
because we have people that do the work.
In this quote, Norman highlights the advantages of having a Portfolio Divisional model for his
oversight as CDO, as it has facilitated his ability to succeed and prevent his turnover in his
position.
102

Collaborative Officer Model
Ken and Claire were the two CDOs under the Collaborative Officer Model. Much like the
title of the model, Ken and Claire described relying heavily on collaboration to accomplish their
work as CDOs. Ken, who has a coordinator who reported him through his role under the Provost,
stated “That’s the problem. Nobody reports to me,” when asked about his unit. Unlike Ken,
Claire has an administrative assistant and is currently lobbying for a direct professional staff
support. Claire, who like Ken reports to the Provost, highlighted her collaboration with the
Multicultural Affairs office in Division of Student Life, stating that if she were able to change
her unit, this office would report to her along with the Office of International Students. Claire
articulated the difficulty of not only having limited staffing when being tasked with a large
institutional role that also required smaller initiatives and ground-level work, but also doing so
while having another role as associate provost. Claire stated,
Because what I find is my biggest issue in terms of time and resources is, there's a lot of
work in DEI that needs to be done in the weeds that's on the ground, running the
workshop, attending all the meetings, doing the bias response, all of that. Even if I took
away the associate provost stuff that isn't DEI, that would be a full-time job, just the in
the weeds stuff, the developing curriculum, all those things. But then there's also this
aspect of my role, and this is written into my job description, that I am responsible for
overseeing our strategic planning and diversity equity inclusion, for overseeing our
progress on these strategic priorities. There's really this mismatch where I think there's a
desire for me to have a 30,000-foot view where I am chief diversity officer, I am like a
VP would operate. But if I don't have anybody under me, I can't fully be there because I
have to be in the weeds, on the ground, doing all of the day-to-day work because I'm the
103

only one, and I think the college really needs both. We need people who can be in the
weeds and we need somebody who is working at a more strategic level to be able to make
more widespread changes. I think because of that structure, because I don't have those
resources, I haven't been able to move forward really larger changes that would be felt
that it would have a bigger impact. It's a lot of smaller things that get done as smaller
initiatives because that's all that I can manage given all of the things that are on my plate.
Claire’s narrative highlights the contradiction between having little human resources yet being
expected to perform both executive-level and ground-level work as a CDO. Lastly, Claire
articulates the difficulty of serving in three roles at once as a result of not having the staff to
mind the ongoing daily work while she minds the “30,000-foot view” as a vice president while
also being responsible for duties in Academic Affairs.
Unit-Based Model
Of the CDOs interviewed, Lydia, Nick, Selena, and Anna were under a Unit-based
Model. Lydia described her unit as being comprised of the Title IX Coordinator and a
coordinator for disability services. Nick shared that he had three fellows under the TRIO
program, a shared administrative assistant, and co-supervised the associate director for
multicultural affairs. Selena’s unit is comprised of an administrative assistant, graduate assistant,
and an executive director; similarly, Anna’s unit consisted of an administrative assistant and
director. In terms of changes to their unit, all Unit-based CDOs but Lydia indicated some sort of
Portfolio model would better meet their needs as a CDO. Nick would add the Office of Student
engagement, overseeing academic support, disability services, and career development. Selena’s
addition to her unit would be the “highly controversial” moves of two staff members from the
Teaching and Learning Center and a mix of additional student affairs and academic affairs roles
104

related to equity and inclusion. Selena highlighted the inaugural nature of her role when
discussing the need to build out a unit to support her work as a CDO, stating:
Again, with an inaugural role it sometimes is different, that you have to build the unit,
and I've been fortunate that I have support to do that. But I know lots of CDOs that don't.
They've got a loose network of people who they don't necessarily have supervisory
responsibility over, which, again, it's relational and collaborative, but at the end of the
day you do need some folks who you supervise and can charge with certain tasks.
In this quote, Selena articulates that CDO role is by nature one of collaboration and requires one
to build relationships; however, without a staff to support with ongoing tasks, the CDO is limited
in what they are able to accomplish.
Portfolio Divisional Model
Lastly the CDOs who are under the Portfolio Divisional Model were Norman, Brian,
Devin, and Melissa. Norman’s division included four professional staff, including the Title IX
coordinator, Multicultural Affairs, Religious and Spiritual Life, with dotted lines to disability
services and an inclusion coordinator in the Leadership Center. Brian’s portfolio included the
identity-based student centers, Multicultural Affairs, Religious and Spiritual Life, disability
services, and the Title IX and compliance programs. Devin’s division was comprised of the
office of Equity and Inclusion, international student services and academic support services with
dotted lines to human resources, alumni affairs, and institutional research. Devin, having similar
dotted reporting lines to Norman, highlighted the need for more direct reporting lines for CDOs
utilizing the example of Multicultural Affairs, stating:
It has to be VP level positions with much …more direct lines than dotted lines. I just
don't understand how you have the office of multicultural [affairs] that is ... their goal is
105

to do DEI work. How does that all office not report to a CDO? In what world does that
make sense? But it is the world I'm in.
Similar to his colleagues in Unit-based and Collaborative Officer models, Devin highlights in
this quote that the Multicultural Affairs office is integral to campus-wide DEI work and, as such,
would benefit from falling under the CDO supervisory portfolio as part of the larger diversity
agenda.
Melissa’s division was comprised of a deputy director, the Civic Engagement Office, the
Teaching and Learning Center, a Black-identity institute, disability services, and four faculty
fellows. While under the Portfolio Divisional Model with additional staff across the institution,
Melissa stated that she would add to her direct unit, including an assistant director to support
with training and a program director to support “key initiatives” within the college.
Stable Funding and Budget for DEI Work
While most of the interviewed CDOs focused on staffing and human resources for their
work, a few of the CDOs also discussed needing the budget and financial resources for their
work. For example, Norman discussed having “the smallest budget in the system,” though stating
that “I feel like if I've ever needed anything, I can always ask for it, especially pre-COVID. Post-
COVID, things have been kind of a mess.” Norman discussed how the impact of the COVID 19
pandemic caused financial difficulty for his institution, where salary freezes, hiring freezes, and
budget reductions took place in response to the pandemic. Though, Norman noted that his unit
was the only unit not to experience furloughs across the entire campus. Nick also referenced the
impact of the pandemic on his budget, where budget cuts occurred due to the college’s response
to the pandemic. Nick commented that having the support of the President would allow him to
ask for additional funds following the pandemic due to the President’s support of his work.
106

In contrast, Ken who reported to the Provost, stated that the funds at his disposal were
more related to his role under the Provost versus his CDO role, stating that he was often seen as
the “dean of money” for the funding he distributed for academic affairs. Ken stated that ideally,
he would prefer an allocated budget specific for the CDO role. In this regard, Ken shared that he
advised his coordinator to track the funding spent on CDO-related work in order to demonstrate
need for a CDO budget at the end of the fiscal year.
Lydia described that she was without a formal budget during the first years of her CDO
role. In order to supplement her budget, Lydia stated how she collaborated with the identity-
based centers on her campus because of their “more robust funding.” Moreover, she shared that
at her current and former institutions, her budget relied on “generous donor” or “soft money” that
provided funding for programming. Brian also discussed that while his unit had “the smallest
percentage of the college’s budget,” “philanthropic interest” was high at his institution for
support of equity and inclusion, stating that this increase in philanthropic interest was likely due
to the racial reckoning during the summer 2020 following the murder of George Floyd at the
hands of the police. Lydia explained the limitations in this type of funding, sharing that this type
of funds relied on having a specific donor from year to year versus being institutionalized. She
shared that increasing this budget would be part of the next capital campaign for the college, in
order to have endowed funding. Lydia pointed out how this dependent relationship with donor
funds was incongruent with the college’s commitment to inclusive excellence, stating
When you say that you believe in inclusion and inclusive excellence, and you have no
internal money to support that... then the question [is], “Is this a real commitment?” The
things that are the priorities, raise money for those things.
107

Lydia’s quote calls into question the commitment of colleges to DEI work when monetary
resources are stabilized through the college’s annual operating budget, and rather mostly
supported through donor funds which can be unpredictable because these funds rely on the will
of the donor from year to year.
Claire commented on the nature of what her budget must be able to address in terms of
her work. Claire provided the example of needing to install gender-neutral bathrooms in each
building so that “everybody can find a place where they’re comfortable to use the restroom,”
alluding to gender exclusion posed by gender-binary bathrooms on campus. She stated,
We don't have [gender neutral bathrooms] in every building yet, that requires some
financial capital. We have a lot more of them than we once did, but we're not done, and
that's going to... that's one way in which resource allocation can slow things down a little
bit.
This example highlights the scope of the CDOs work that requires financial resources, beyond
staff or programmatic efforts.
Another financial resource discussed by three of the CDOs was physical space for work
related to equity and inclusion. While Melissa also acknowledged the need for financial
resources, she also named that space is part of these types of resources. She acknowledged that,
although each person in her unit had office space, they lacked space to gather in groups or lack
of conference space. Norman and Lydia also named the importance of physical space for the
scope of the CDO’s work. Norman specifically spoke about the need to increase space for one of
his departments, Multicultural Affairs, pointing to the increase in students of color without an
increase in space for this Center.
108

The findings from this theme reveal that CDOs felt strongly about the staffing, budget,
and space resources allotted to their work. The findings indicate that the Portfolio-Divisional
model, where the CDO would have their own unit and oversee multiple DEI-related departments
to comprise the CDO’s division, most adequately allows the CDO to address the varying levels
of institutional need. The CDO’s staff and division might focus on the day-to-day tasks of the
diversity agenda, while the CDO’s focus is on the Vice President’s level of institutional
oversight.
Campus Partners’ Resistance to Change Policies and Procedures
I asked the CDOs about the resistance they might have experienced in their roles. In this
theme, the findings reveal that much of the resistance faced by CDOs was related to resisting
change, most commonly around the CDOs work to change policies and procedures that
perpetuate systemic oppression and inequity within the college.
Norman’s description of resistance at his college focused on his work with “some
faculty.” He explained that faculty viewed the work of his office as a “hurdle that they had to get
over.” Norman provided the example of needing to review the lists of finalists for faculty hiring.
Norman stated, “I'm still working on making sure that people understand that this is for the good
of the college, it's for the good of your department that we're doing this, and it's not just a
checkbox.” Similar to Norman, Brian also described his resistance with the faculty, stating “I
think some of the resistance was, ‘We don't need an administrator to come and tell us how to do
these things. The faculty can figure this out on their own.” Brian described his collaborators as
generally “doubtful of [his] personal approach,” specifically as it was informed by social justice
education and his professional preparation for CDO work. Melissa also articulated a similar type
of resistance related to faculty hiring. Melissa stated, “the faculty who are usually articulating
109

openness to a variety of things seem to really resist the process, not the product, but the process
of what that would mean,” referring to the process of cluster hiring for faculty of color in order
to bring more racial diversity to her college.
When describing organizational resistance in her college, Lydia described working with
her colleagues as an “uphill battle,” where she had to choose her strategies of approach carefully
to be “mindful of the culture of the place.” Lydia provided an example of when she “shut down”
a search that was yielding candidates who were not from diverse backgrounds. She emphasized
that having the support of the president and provost was important so that “people do have to
understand that they can't go around you because people would try to do that.” When
summarizing what resistance has looked like for Lydia, she highlighted the institution type and
challenging of the college’s norms:
I think one always has to accept that there's never going to be unanimity. Everybody is
not going to be on board. If you think that's what's going to happen, you're going to be
highly disappointed in doing this work if you think there's not going to be resistance even
from the most liberal colleges in the United States, because it really is challenging the
status quo. It's challenging a space of extreme comfort and privilege. Even here at [my
college], which is definitely considered way more liberal. It is way more liberal but has
the exact same problems.
In this quote, Lydia highlights that the nature of the CDO work is based in challenging the
“status quo,” therefore by nature will experience resistance. She went on to describe the
resistance as “resistance to change and a resistance to a perception of what higher education
should be,” commenting on that many at her college believe that only the “smartest kids deserve
this opportunity. The kids who can pay deserve this opportunity.” Selena focused on the
110

territorial nature of resistance, where those who resisted her work saw her “in their territory”
when it came to changing “systems and culture.” Selena described that, while her collaborators
welcomed optional workshops that they could attend, they were resistance to working toward
changing policy and practice. Similar to Lydia, Selena stated that this is why having the trust of
the President was important so that inequitable polices and processes could be addressed.
Also, like Lydia, Nick said that the resistance he experienced as “limited thinking about
how to make change.” However, unlike Lydia, Nick commented that his resistance originated
more from the President, where “resistance looks like questing me about my thoughts when he
doesn’t do that with my white colleagues.” Upon further reflection in the interview, Nick also
likened resistance to “pigeonholing,” where he felt the President was “putting [him] in boxes”
which limited his institutional work related to the diversity agenda. Nick provided an example of
where he was not “looped in” regarding a bias incident that happened on campus until nine hours
later. Nick stated,
So that's where the resistance comes from. Like, they didn't even know, I'm the first
person, you should have called. And it wasn't the way and why I was looped in, is so that
what went on from the president wouldn't piss people off or was sensitive enough. That's
where the resistance come from. So, it's this kind of very... It's just lowered expectations.
It's like the okay. It's keeping me in my place.
Nick’s narrative portrays resistance in the form of not fully utilizing his role despite being
available, therefore undercutting his ability or authority as a CDO at his college.
Claire took this notion of resistance to change a step farther, stating, “On occasion, I
think the obstacle is political will.” Claire perceived that some the institutional change she was
leading required some pushing “a little harder” and required her “to be a little firmer.” She stated
111

that the reluctance towards this push revealed that her collaborators “were much more
comfortable with baby steps.” Claire also described that the resistance she encountered was only
reported to her “secondhand,” where she specifically recounted resistance in the form of
“claiming academic freedom.” She provided an example of her work with faculty following a
request from the Provost for all faculty to review their curriculum through an anti-racist lens to
make appropriate adjustments. Claire shared that while Provost requested this evaluation, Claire
directed the charge. In this example, the “pushback” was from faculty who perceived this
direction to be “They’re going to try to tell us what we have to teach now. That’s not how this
college operates. What happened to academic freedom? I shouldn’t have to say or teach anything
that I don’t want to.” Claire also noted that the faculty also saw this directive as a type of
“reverse discrimination,” stating that the argument from some faculty was “if we suddenly center
all these black, and brown, and indigenous voices, then we’re just going to end up marginalizing
white folks.” To this concern, Claire responded, “Students still have plenty of opportunity to
learn about the white people. Don't you worry, that's not going anywhere.” Claire also shared
that sometimes the resistance from faculty has also been that they feel they are being asked to do
too much or that they do not see these changes as necessary and more see “all this diversity talk
is just a distraction.” Selena also shared that she encountered resistance in the form of “academic
freedom,” stating,
This whole notion that seems to have been perpetuated in higher ed that somehow
academic freedom means that you can say and do anything you want, and it just isn't the
case. And I think that higher ed needs a much stronger approach to this notion that, as a
faculty member, no, you cannot do and say whatever you want, particularly when it's
exerting harm.
112

Devin’s response to the question of how he’s experience resistance was rooted in the faith
identity of his institution. Devin shared that it is about how his institution is willing to
“negotiate” it’s “historical roots and identity, but also evolve into the 21
st
century and truly
become an anti-racist organization.” As the only CDO representing a faith-based institution,
Devin specifically described his institution’s response to Devin’s introduction of moving towards
gender-neutral housing, meant provide more gender inclusive housing at his institution. He
described that many pushed back on the idea of women and men living together because of the
faith nature of the college. Devin said that he utilized state law which allowed people “to live in
accordance with their gender identity and expression.” Devin stated that he didn’t use the “legal
threat” right away, however the legal angle was helpful in addressing the “historical practices” at
the faith-based college. Devin further expanded on the incongruence between current practices
and the commitment to being a “21
st
century anti-racist organization,” stating,
So, my running joke for this is, every single president will claim, and we will put this on
our website, this institution is going to be anti-racist and we are committed to diversity,
equity and inclusion. But can you imagine a world in which the CEO of Staples said that
selling paper is the most important thing that we do as a company, and there's not a single
question in the annual performance review about how much paper did you sell? That's
what we're doing with our faculty and staff. Where does DEI staff come up in tenure
decisions and promotion decisions in annual merit raises for faculty? Where does DEI
work come up in goal setting for staff or in their own performance evaluation? So, how
can something be really important to the identity of an institution, to the central mission
of an institution, and yet, you don't ask anybody about whether or not they contributed to
113

it, right? This is the hypocrisy. Not being able to translate values to action, that's where
the disconnect is.
Devin’s comparison of the “selling paper” for Staples to DEI work for colleges highlights the
organizational resistance to update standard college practices, such as performance evaluations
and promotion decisions, to reflect the college’s touted DEI commitment.
The findings in this section indicate that resistance for the CDOs often comes in the form
of individuals resisting change, particularly when that change is rooted in addressing policies and
procedures that may be outdates or steeped in oppression or inequity. As such, these findings
suggest that a CDO would be more supported by having climate that is more change resilient
and, related to the findings in the individual organizational components in the next section, are
able to understand the inequities and oppression perpetuated in certain policies and procedures.
Research Question 3: What Individual Skills, Abilities, Needs, and Values Facilitate the
CDO’s Ability to Impact Institutional Change?
This last section of the findings will provide the individual organizational elements which
facilitate the CDO’s ability to impact institutional change. The two influences presented in this
section will be the lack of DEI-related knowledge and skills needed by collaborators when
working with the CDO and the lack of value attribution to the CDO role by campus partners.
Lack of DEI-related Knowledge and Skills Needed by Collaborators
The Chief Diversity Officers provided a range of answers when asks specifically about
what knowledge or understanding they believed their campus partners needed in order to
understand the CDO’s work. Of the answers provided, the answers could be categorized using
Krathwol’s (2002) knowledge categories of factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge.
While each CDO seemed to provide a unique answer to this question during the interview, Table
114

15 shows the trends or connections between the different types of knowledge each CDO
discussed, and Table 16 shows what topics the CDOs also offered through educational programs.

Table 15
What Knowledge Collaborators Need to Know
Factual knowledge Conceptual knowledge Procedural knowledge
Difference between
equality and equity

Equity and Inclusion

History of race in
the United States

DEI language and
terminology

Microaggressions

White privilege/Whiteness/White
supremacy

Direct student experience

Student identity development
theory

Critical race theory

Black feminist theory

Queer theory

Implicit bias

Social psychology

Awareness of self and positionality

Chief diversity officer and DEI
work as a profession

Systemic oppression

Racism/Racial hierarchy

Anti-Racism

Myth of meritocracy
Inclusive pedagogy and
teaching

Theories of change

Social justice education
pedagogy

How interrupt
microaggressions

Intergroup Relations

How to leverage positional
power to change policy

Data-driven decision making,
assessment and DEI
evaluation

Inclusive hiring strategies for
faculty

Integrating DEI into role-
specific procedures and
work

Allyship in action

115

Nick provided a lens through which he saw the progression of these different knowledge
types, referring to them as “levels,” where an educator or colleague’s capacity increased with
each level they engaged. In discussing the importance of knowledge in general related to the
CDO work, Claire stated,
I think one, too often people think that diversity, equity, and inclusion work just requires
a good heart. I think that people don't recognize that it's a profession. I think they don't
always recognize that there is skill and expertise that is needed to do this work.
Sometimes I think that people tend to think that anybody can do it, and therefore can
underestimate our expertise and our credentials. There are people who are like, "I really
want to be better; I want to treat everybody well. I don't want to be enacting
microaggressions and therefore put me on the diversity committee." I'm like, "It requires
more than that. There are literatures, there is research, I have a PhD in this."
In this quote, Claire highlights that not only do campus partners need the knowledge and skills
related to DEI, but campus partners must also understand the depth of knowledge required for
the CDO position.
The factual knowledge examples provided by Norman, Nick, and Selena focused on
building a shared lexicon for the campus, where shared language provided a foundation for their
community around issues of equity and inclusion. This factual knowledge ranged from
differentiating between “equality” and “equity,” to understanding the history of race in the
United States, to basic terminology related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Norman highlights
that the foundational knowledge relates to the larger work of the CDO work, stating,
Another kind of knowledge would be the difference between equality and equity. I think
that people are still confused about those things, that we are the office for equity and
116

inclusion, which means that we're going to make some people uncomfortable with what
we're doing in order to help those who have previously not been well served by structures
and policies of the college.
Norman indicates the distinction between equality versus equity, in which equity requires
addressing structures and policies of the college which have historically not served all who
attend the college.
All CDOs but Norman, Lydia, and Devin also articulated the need for conceptual
knowledge. CDOs such as Brian and Anna focused on concepts related to oppression, white
supremacy, anti-racism, and myth of meritocracy; while CDOs Ken, Nick, and Melissa also
highlighted the need for understanding concepts such as student development theory, implicit
bias, and awareness of self and positionality in conversations related to diversity, equity, and
inclusion. Brian also focused on academic theories, stating that his collaborators needed to
understand critical race theory, Black feminist theory, and queer theory. Similarly, Melissa called
attention to the foundational nature of conceptual knowledge of oppression and racial hierarchy
and how this knowledge is connected to procedural knowledge:
I think the most foundational knowledge is that we are all subject to the sort of disease of
injustice and oppressive systems and structures as a way to operate. But that is really
embedded in our thinking and our understanding of how to build and sustain the
relationships. But they are these structures based on hierarchies and that that's what
maintains some stability.
Melissa’s quote reveals that in order to build and sustain more equitable colleges, one must first
understand the hierarchal and systematic nature of injustice and oppression.
117

Lastly, the procedural knowledge discussed by the CDOs referred to applying the factual and
conceptual knowledge to the daily practice of their colleges and collaborators. CDOs Norman,
Brian, and Melissa all stressed the importance of the Inclusive pedagogy and teaching practice
for their faculty colleagues, naming the classroom as an important location for this type of
knowledge. Additionally, Claire and Selena shared that they wanted their collaborators to have
the procedural knowledge of how to utilize positional power to create policy change. Melissa
also provided insight into progressive nature of DEI knowledge attainment. In discussing the
changes she’s seen on her campus as knowledge has increase, she stated,
I have people talking about food insecurity in a different way than they were before. Does
that mean that we're food secure? No, but it does mean that we're talking about food
insecurity in a different way, right? Or I have people understanding sort of the division of
labor that we have for our faculty at different stages better. Does that mean that they have
less labor? No, but it means that... Do you see what I'm saying? So to name some success
here is really the kind of long game. So I want be honest about great things, but like now
is everybody not racist anymore? No, I hadn't done that though.
Melissa refers to the knowledge attainment as a “different way” and how this is progressing the
conversations of equity at her college, though this progress is not to be mistaken as finally
arriving at the equitable outcome. This trajectory also describes the development from factual
and theoretical knowledge to the procedural where outcomes may be more attainable in terms of
implementing the knowledge into practice.
With the variety of facts, concepts, and procedures mentioned by the CDOs, their
responses to the question of what their collaborators need to know to understand their work
118

highlight the additional burden placed on the CDO when colleagues do not have this knowledge.
Claire underscores this, stating,
I think I am often asked to carry an unreasonable workload, and I think in part that is
because they don't recognize how much capacity this work requires. Even thinking about
when we are the ones that are hearing people retell their experiences of bias on campus,
that we are carrying those students, and staff, and faculty who aren't feeling welcomed.
Then showing up in spaces where there isn't a whole lot of cultural competency and
having to always be the one that is raising the issue and having to always be the one that
is correcting when people say something that's incorrect or insensitive. It takes a lot of
capacity. I think I would like them to better understand that. I would also like them to
better understand how to be a better ally to me and to others on campus who do the work.
Through this quote, Claire demonstrates that increasing the factual, conceptual, and procedural
knowledge of DEI work among her colleagues would lighten her burden as a CDO.
Related back to the transactional element of the access to the senior leadership team,
Brian and Nick explicitly named the importance of the Senior Team needing to possess this
knowledge as well. Both CDOs discussed how they might have more capacity in their roles if the
senior leadership team was more skilled in supporting the DEI work within their own divisions
as well. Brian stated,
I will say, I have this dream vision of the rest of the senior leadership team possessing
more of the knowledge they need to be able to run their own shops without so much
dependency on me, right? I think that would help a little bit that I could just run my own
division, and not have to also be involved in kind of in the weeds in all these other areas
of the college as well. I think that stuff does wear me down quite a bit.
119

Brian highlights in this quote how the senior leadership team are critical in supporting their
specific divisions so that the CDO can focus on the CDO’s division primarily.

Table 16
Workshop topics or trainings provided by CDOs
Factual knowledge Conceptual knowledge Procedural knowledge
DEI terminology and
lexicon
Themed programming
related to DEI

Anti-racism

Oppressive systems

Self-awareness
“Living in a diverse
community” (student
orientation)

Faculty orientation

Inclusive pedagogy

Mitigating bias

Equitable hiring practices

120

The findings in this theme indicate that CDOs would have greater capacity to be
successful if their campus partners held foundational knowledge related to DEI work and were
able to implement that knowledge and skills intro their specific job functions. The findings
suggest that campus partners must have factual and conceptual knowledge to adequately attain
procedural knowledge of DEI work as well. Moreover, by increasing campus partners’
knowledge and skill level, this would release some of the burden and expectations currently
placed with the CDO as the campus subject matter expert.
Lack of Value Attribution to Collaboration With CDO
I asked each CDO about how they think their collaborators saw their role and the
importance of the role.
Norman shared that he hopes that campus partners see him as a “collaborator.” He
included his office in how he discussed how colleagues might perceive his work stating, “I hope
they see us as having expert knowledge in diversity, equity, and inclusion and call on us for
training and facilitation, which they do.” He also hoped that his colleagues saw his office as
helpful when a problem occurred, though his goal was “to get them to see [his office] as a place
to go to help make change, but that’s a little harder.” Norman stated that he was “still working on
making sure that people understand that [DEI work] is good for the college, it’s good for your
department that we’re doing this, and it’s not just a checkbox.”
For Ken, he described needing to remind his colleagues of the mission of the college
when working together. Ken said that he would pose to his colleagues questions like, “Look
we’re all here for the freaking students okay? What is our mission? Our mission is to develop
students for lives of leadership and service with disciplined minds and…” Additionally he would
121

remind them, “We’re doing all this stuff not for some stupid policy, but we’re doing it because of
the students. We are the adults in this room.”
Brian stated that he felt some would see their work as important, citing the racial justice
reckoning during the summer of 2020 as a reason for valuing the CDO’s work more highly.
When speaking of his colleague’s perception of his work, Brian shared a sentiment that a faculty
member articulated,
Oh, your division is there to just make everybody feel comfortable and not do the critical
work, leave the critical work to us," that was the sentiment. And I was like, "I see it as
both/and." Yes, it is important to make people feel a sense of connection and belonging,
and certainly we want that for our students. But I think the best way to do that is to do the
critical work, right? To actually teach and educate everybody on campus about
oppression, and that's not an easy thing to do. So, I think some partners see us as just the
Kumbaya folks who serve food and screen films, and basically train the students of color
and other marginalized students to like, adapt to fit the culture of the place. And I could
see why they feel that way.
This quote highlights Brian’s view of the faculty’s lack of valuing the work if they did not see
him and his office engaged in “critical work.” Brian also stated that he believes his colleagues
would say his work was important, while other might see the CDO as “having another senior
level administrator as administrative bloat” and “costing the college a lot of money at a time
where we actually need to be saving our resources or investing them differently.” However,
Brian highlights that following the summer of 2020, colleagues might see the CDO as someone
“who can deal with it,” referring to antiracism practices at the college.
122

Nick specifically commented on the role of racial identity regarding his colleagues’
perception of the value of his role, stating that he believed that colleagues of color saw his role as
“integral” whereas his white colleagues saw his work as “peripheral to their own… unless it
impacts their work.”
Claire and Anna both stated that they felt their campus partner saw them as critically
important. Claire stated that she felt most of her campus partners saw her role as “really, really
important if not critical.” She stated that evidence for this was based on “how many rooms I’m
being invited into, how many more conversations people want to be present for, kinds of things
people want to consult me about has grown ever since I got here.” And similar to Brian, she
believed that “the reckoning for racial justice” over the summer of 2020 played a role in campus
partners seeing her as “critically important and to the point where they will criticize [Claire’s]
being excluded from certain things because they really think that [Claire’s] presence is
important.” Claire went on to appreciate having colleagues who affirmed her role on campus,
particularly when she felt she was not doing enough. She also noted that she believed “older, and
whiter, and male, and cis, and straight” colleagues were “annoyed” by her and “tend to think that
[Claire] is crazy,” however, believed ultimately that she has “a lot more support than she has
detractors.”
Devin highlighted Norman’s insight about coming to the CDO when there was a
problem, however he calls attention to when in the timeline of the problem he asked for his
advice. Devin shared,
Sometimes it's like, “I'm in trouble, and I need advice.” But more and more, I think I've
moved away when people show up there, I help them think back on, how did we get to
this point? I'll give you advice, but what should you have done three steps ago, two steps
123

ago, one step ago, so that you don't have a group of angry students meeting with you right
now?
This quote indicates that while colleagues might be able to see Devin as helpful in a problem,
Devin believes it might be more helpful if they saw his value earlier on in the problem process.
Devin went on to highlight his work specifically with those he referred to “goodhearted
neoliberal white people,” where he created a comfortable space where they could talk but be held
accountable for racist views and behaviors from an educational standpoint.
For Melissa, she stated that some might see her as a “glorified trainer, that basically what
I’m supposed to do is teach every day.” Melissa observed that how her colleagues valued her
role was dependent on how they perceived themselves, stating,
But if some people understand my role to be really a strategic initiative transformation
creation kind of person, then they understand that role is pretty key, right? Now, both of
those things require folks recognizing where they are as individuals and as a collective in
the institution. So if people understand themselves to be in need of some shifts related to
how they think about these issues, then my role is foundational.
Melissa’s quote demonstrates that if her colleagues perceived her to be able to accomplish a goal
or have knowledge they did not have, then they would value her work more highly.
The findings in this section demonstrate that campus partners for the CDO vary in their
ability to see the value of the CDO role. Campus partners might see the ability to collaborate
with the CDO or see the CDO as able to perform trainings and problem solving. However, the
CDO is best supported when campus partners saw the CDO as integral to their work and the
work of the institution in creating a more diverse and equitable college.

124

Summary of Findings
The study set out to understand the transformational, transactional, and individual
organizational elements influencing the CDO’s ability to create institutional change. Utilizing
semi-structured interviews, the research conducted a qualitative study of CDOs currently
working at small liberal arts colleges. Though there were varied experiences among the CDOs,
the findings indicated that there were common influences along the transformational,
transactional, and individual organizational elements. In terms of the transformational
organizational elements, CDOs were most influenced by the college’s strategic diversity
planning, the leadership of the President of the college in propelling the DEI agenda, and the
level of promotion of a culture of Inclusive Excellence. These transformational elements set the
tone for the transactional organizational influences, which included the importance of the CDO’s
supervisor and related title and service as a senior leadership team member, the lack of human
and financial resources for the level of CDO work, and the high level of resistance to change
from campus partners as it related to college policy and procedure. Lastly, the individual
organizational elements influencing the CDO’s ability to create institutional change were the
level of knowledge and skills of their campus partners and whether or not their campus partners
recognized the value of their role as CDOs. In Chapter Five, I will discuss the findings related to
the existing literature and their interconnectedness and provide recommendations for practice to
address the problem of practice for the study.

125

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to explore and examine how organizational resistance
influences the Chief Diversity Officers' ability to impact institutional change. The study
addressed the following research questions:
1. What is the nature of the transformational organizational elements that influence the
Chief Diversity Officers' ability to impact institutional change?
2. What is the nature of the transactional organizational elements that influence the Chief
Diversity Officer's ability to impact institutional change?
3. What are individual skills, abilities, needs, and values that influence the CDOs' ability to
impact institutional change?
This chapter will provide a discussion of the findings as it relates to existing literature. Based on
the discussion and findings, the chapter will present recommendations for small liberal arts
colleges in improving organizational support for the Chief Diversity Officer. The chapter will
conclude with limitations and delimitations of the study and recommendations for future
research.
Discussion of Findings
The first section of this chapter will review the organizational influences findings
provided in Chapter Four in relation to the existing literature. For this study, I utilized the Burke-
Litwin Organizational Change Model (1992) as a theoretical framework. In the Burke-Litwin
Model, the transformational, transactional, and individual organizational elements are described
as interconnected in an open, casual system. The Model provides an organizational analysis of
how each level of organizational elements influence the other levels of the organizational
change. In this regard, the findings of the present study demonstrate that resistance towards the
126

Chief Diversity Officer in small liberal arts occurs at all levels of the organization, which in turn
influences resistance on different levels of the college. For example, in the findings for this
study, CDOs who were fully supported by transformational elements of the organization (such as
support from the president, an operational diversity strategic plan, and institutional culture of
inclusive excellence) were also supported at the transactional level through a Portfolio-
Divisional Model for staffing for the CDO division and presidential leadership support in
mitigating resistance towards DEI policy and procedures. As such the findings demonstrate the
interconnected nature of various organizational influences in promoting resistance or support
throughout the organization for the Chief Diversity Officer’s ability to impact institutional
change. The following discussion will review each influence, discuss that influence with regards
to existing literature, and discuss how each influence connects to other organizational influences
revealed through the findings.
Transformational Organizational Influences
The Burke-Litwin Organizational Change Model (1992) identifies the transformation
organizational change elements as mission and strategy, leadership, and organizational culture.
As discussed in Chapter Four, the present study had findings that corresponded to these
transformational elements. These findings indicated that the strategic plan, the president’s
leadership, and the culture of inclusive excellence were transformational influences upon the
CDO in accomplishing the diversity agenda. The Burke-Litwin model (1992) discussed how the
transformational elements of the organization provide long-term change meant to bring about
new behaviors in an organization to support the change efforts. In regard to the present study,
diversity strategic planning, presidential leadership, and an inclusive excellence culture are
127

driving factors in promoting organizational behavior that facilitate support for the CDO’s ability
to impact institutional change and accomplish the college’s diversity agenda.
Strategic Diversity Planning
Nine of the 10 CDOs indicated that some form of a strategic plan or diversity action plan
served as a guiding document for their work, whether current or outdated. The CDOs discussed
how the plans in their institutions included diversity items, or that action plans were created in
response to the summer of racial justice reckoning in 2020. Burke-Litwin's model (1992)
discusses the role of external influences upon the organizational change process. In this regard,
the findings indicated that the summer of 2020 calling for racial justice alongside student
demands and activism propelled the CDO's colleges' strategic planning and action. This finding
is aligned with the Diversity Crisis Model (Williams & Clowney, 2007), where college campus
diversity planning begins due to a crisis. While the crisis has been the driving force for change,
Williams (2008) called for a more strategic and proactive approach diversity planning. This is
also aligned with the Burke-Litwin Model (1992), which highlighted how the external
environment often dictates the need for change. In this regard, the external influences on the
findings of this study were the call for racial justice during the summer of 2020 and student
activists calling for more DEI accountability within the colleges. Further, research supports the
need for a strategic plan to provide alignment with the directives of the plan with the vision,
mission, and strategy of the college (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2017). The findings from this
study suggest that, not only does diversity strategic planning provide guidance for the CDO’s
work, but the planning must also be complimented with specific strategies to implement the
diversity strategic plan and diversity action plans.
128

The findings from the study indicate that the strategic plan often provided institutional
direction and set priorities, for which the Chief Diversity Officer was responsible and utilized to
promote institutional change. Strategic diversity planning provides a transformational influence
upon the day-to-day elements of the organization, which are captured in the transactional
elements of the college. For example, strategic planning that calls for increasing the racial
diversity of faculty and students provides institutional support for the CDO to address policies,
structures and procedures that work against advancing racial diversity at the college. Without
these institutionally supported diversity plans, the Chief Diversity Officer is subject to resistance
when creating institutional change at the transactional and individual levels of the organization.
Presidential Leadership
Eight of the 10 CDOs stressed the president's role in their ability to create change on their
campus. This finding indicates that the president's role is a significant transformational
organizational element. The president acts as a type of gatekeeper to either facilitate the work or
slow the CDO's work. Participants who reported a communicative and trusting work relationship
with their president shared that the president's support of DEI-related work on campus proved a
facilitating factor in addressing resistance in the change process for the CDOs. This finding is
consistent with the literature, which explicitly identifies the president as a key leader in driving
the college's diversity agenda (Kezar, 2007a, 2007b; Kezar & Eckel, 2008; Kezar et al., 2008).
Moreover, Aguilar and Bauer (2014) found Presidents provide support to the CDO in the form of
access to institutional decision making and imbuing the CDO with authority to implement
institutional change. Further in an interview, Dr. McDonald, Chief Diversity Officer of the
University of Missouri System and Vice-Chancellor for Inclusion, Diversity and Equity at the
University of Missouri, promoted presidential leadership and education programs with a focus on
129

diversity, stating that participation in such programs by a president would still necessitate the
president recognizing the importance of diversity and equity matters (Douglas & Little, 2017).
As the interview participants identified the President as a key leader in their success as
Chief Diversity Officers, the findings indicate that the president’s leadership role is a
transformational influence because of the president’s ability to set priorities for the college,
structure and give direction to the college’s senior leadership team, and advance the work of the
CDO. The findings indicate the president’s support of the CDO’s work is able to mitigate
resistance experienced at the transactional and individual levels of the organization due to the
president’s influence upon the institutional priorities of the college. Therefore, without the
support and understanding of the president, the CDO may experience additional resistance due to
a lack of institutional leadership empowering the CDOs efforts and authority.
Culture of Inclusive Excellence
Though there was a variety of CDO responses to how they promote inclusive excellence
at their college, findings suggest that having a model or framework for culture setting helped
facilitate the college's diversity agenda. Four of the CDOs readily identified how inclusive
excellence was promoted at their college and how the model provided a paradigm for building
DEI-related programs, initiatives, and policy changes. While two of 10 CDOs indicated that their
organization actively decided against using the Inclusive Excellence Model, the participants
reported that they either utilized a different framework or still could identify elements of the
Inclusive Excellence Model underpinning their college's diversity agenda. Though the CDOs
varied in how they explicitly saw their work directly related to the Inclusive Excellence Model,
all of the CDOs expressed various engagement of the core assumptions of the model. These core
elements included supporting the diversity in the demographics of their college, leveraging of
130

diversity as a component of institutional excellence, focus on the student benefit of their
diversity work, ensuring organizational resources worked toward the diversity agenda,
addressing various learning levels and cultural differences at their campus, and providing
intentional knowledge development regarding identities such as race and gender as part of the
college's academic offerings (Williams & Clowney, 2007). Although Inclusive Excellence was
not the universally implemented model for the participants, the CDOs' responses suggest that
having a framework did guide culture development. As mentioned in Chapter Two, Gallimore
and Goldenberg's (2001) define a cultural model as a "shared mental schema or normative
understandings of how the world works, or out to work." This study's findings are consistent
with Gallimore and Goldenberg's assertion that cultural models can influence organizational
behavior by providing a shared understanding. This study's findings suggest that the resistance
toward the CDO might be lowered if the organization implements a common framework or
cultural model aligned with the organization's commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Burke and Litwin (1992) identify culture as “the collection of overt and covert rules,
values, and principles that are enduring and guide organizational behavior” (p. 532). The
findings demonstrate that CDOs utilize frameworks to build an inclusive excellence culture, as
these frameworks have the ability to articulate the values and principles that promote a culture,
where institutional excellence is defined by inclusion. While the interviewed CDOs did not
report specific resistance related to an inclusive excellence culture, the findings indicate that
building this culture can influence their work at the transactional and individual level of the
organizations by providing the values and principles guiding the college’s diversity agenda. In
this regard, a culture of inclusive excellence is able to facilitate the CDO’s efforts to make
changes at the policy, structure, and procedure level of the organization (transformational
131

influences) and work with campus collaborators in accomplishing such changes (transactional
influences).
Transactional Organizational Elements
Chapter Four also provided findings that corresponded to the transactional organizational
elements identified by Burke-Litwin’s Organizational Change Model (1992). Burke and Litwin
(1992) describe the transactional elements as change “via relatively short-term reciprocity among
people in groups” (p. 530). The transactional influence findings from the present study indicated
that the reporting line for the CDO, availability of human and financial resources, colleague’s
resistance to DEI policy and procedure changes were transactional influences upon the CDO’s
ability to accomplish the college’s diversity agenda. As these influences are the day-to-day
aspects of the organization, they are influenced by the transformational influences described in
the previous section. For example, the president’s transformational influence impacts the staffing
and financial resources allocated to the CDO. The following section will provide these findings,
how the findings relate to existing literature, and how these transactional influences relate to
other organizational influences.
Reporting to the President, CDO Titles, and Access to the Senior Leadership Team
Nine of the 10 CDOs interviewed discussed the value of reporting to the college president
or the drawbacks to reporting to the Provost. The findings demonstrate that reporting to the
president was accompanied by interconnected benefits for the CDO. One of these benefits, as
alluded to in the transformational influence section regarding Presidential leadership, is that
reporting to the president lowered organizational resistance toward the CDO’s change efforts due
to the president's supportive authority and leadership regarding DEI-specific changes.
Additionally, three of the CDOs also discussed that, by reporting to the president, the CDO
132

might also acquire a position title that matched that of their peers on the senior leadership team,
such as Vice President. These participants shared that this title might help facilitate conversations
more readily and denote the authority and importance of CDO’s role within the college. Burke
and Litwin (1992) identified structure as a transactional organizational element and defined
structure as “the arrangement of functions and people into specific areas and levels of
responsibility, decision-making authority, communication, and relationships to assure effective
implementation of the organization’s mission and strategy” (p. 532). Given this definition, the
structuring of the CDO’s reporting line influences the ability to carry out the strategic diversity
planning identified as a transformational influence. As the findings indicate that reporting
structure is more effective when reporting to the president, the transformational influence of the
president’s leadership directly shapes the transactional influence of the CDO’s reporting
structure.
Moreover, six of the CDOs also discussed the president's senior leadership team as an
additional component of reporting to the president. While not all of the CDOs who reported to a
president stated that they were on the senior leadership team, they did indicate the importance of
being designated to serve as part of the president's senior leadership team, due to the level of
access to other Vice Presidents in promoting change or the ability to participate in decision-
making conversations that would benefit from CDO participation. These findings are consistent
with Leon's 2014 study, which found that the CDOs who did not report to the president were
limited in their ability to create change. Leon's case study (2014) demonstrated that the
"executive level" status of the CDO facilitated institutional authority and access to key
stakeholders with institutional decision-making power. Additionally, according to Williams and
Wade-Golden's (2013) national study of CDOs, "The CDO must have a presence on the senior-
133

most leadership teams, and an opportunity to contribute regularly to diversity – and non-
diversity-related matters, just as any other senior officer." This study's findings affirm that access
to key stakeholders, such as the senior leadership team, is a meaningful influence on the CDO's
ability to create institutional change.
Human and Financial Resources for CDO
Nine of the 10 CDOs stated that they would augment their human resources if given the
opportunity. The participant pool was comprised of all of the archetypes for CDO vertical
structures identified by Williams and Wade-Golden (2013), with two CDOs in the Collaborative
Officer Model, four in the Unit-based Model, and four in the Portfolio-Divisional Model. Claire
highlighted this best when she indicated the tension she experienced as a Collaborative Officer,
where she was expected to both addresses the large-picture institutional-level changes while also
being tasked with the "on the ground" level work of programming and various diversity
initiatives with specific constituency groups. As a CDO with no support or programming staff,
Claire’s observation reflects the impact of staffing (transactional influence) on being able to meet
the day-to-day programmatic demands of the college’s diversity agenda and also the higher-level
leadership needed for the diversity strategic planning (transformational influence). An additional
transformational-transactional relationship was found where CDOs that reported a Portfolio-
Divisional Model of staffing also described having support from their college president, a
transformational influence.
Despite these varying resource models, the findings indicate that human resources
influence the CDO's ability to fulfill the scope of their institutional change role. This finding is
consistent with Williams and Wade-Golden's national study (2013), which discussed the benefits
to each of the unique archetypes, explicitly identifying the access to administrative support,
134

programmatic support, and alignment with diversity efforts with other DEI-related campus
departments, offices, or positions. Additionally, Leon (2014) found that financial and human
resources are vital to facilitating the CDO’s ability to build stronger connections and alignment
towards the college’s diversity agenda. Resources must be readily available in order to ensure
effective organizational change efforts, where resources are assessed and aligned with
institutional priorities (Clark & Estes, 2008; Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; (Waters, Marzano
& McNulty, 2003). Therefore, ensuring that CDO is equipped with the financial and human
resources to meet the demands of the college’s diversity agenda is necessary for effective
diversity change. The findings suggest that, if the transactional influences of human and financial
resources are not adequate for the scope of the CDO’s scope, the CDO’s ability to carry out the
college’s strategic planning and promote an inclusive excellence culture (transformational
influences) is limited or compromised.
Resistance to Change of Policies and Procedures
All of the CDOs indicated that they encountered resistance in working with campus
partners, specifically regarding their efforts to create change to policy and procedures. Examples
of these policies and procedures included increasing diversity within the faculty hiring pool and
related hiring practices, promoting inclusive pedagogy practices within the classroom,
approaching crisis management, and transgender and gender inclusion practices. This finding is
consistent with the research regarding resistance CDOs encounter regarding their work. Nixon's
2017 study of women of color in the CDO role discussed experiencing discrimination not only
based on their race and gender but also based on the nature of their role as the CDO. Though all
of the participants indicated that they identified with at least one marginalized racial identity,
only one participant discussed the role of his racial identity in the resistance he encountered in
135

his work. This may appear to be a discrepancy with studies like Nixon's 2017 and Marana's 2016
study of women of color CDOs; however, this difference in research focus will be discussed in
this chapter's section regarding future research. The CDOs most commonly named the faculty as
the stakeholder group with which they encountered the most resistance regarding policy and
procedure change. The CDOs named the faculty hiring process, inclusive pedagogy, and the
concept of “academic freedom” as instances where they encountered significant resistance.
Given the shared governance aspect of small liberal arts colleges, this form of resistance from
faculty would benefit from future research. The findings highlight how resistance to DEI-related
policy and procedure changes by the faculty and other campus partners can undermine the
development of an inclusive excellence culture, a transformational influence upon the CDO’s
ability to create institutional change.
Individual Organizational Influences
The Burke-Litwin Model (1992) also highlights the individual skills, abilities, and
motivation related to organizational change. The findings from the present study indicated that
the CDO’s collaborator’s lack of DEI knowledge and their undervaluing of the CDO role at the
college were individual organizational influences upon the CDO’s ability to accomplish the
college’s diversity agenda. The Burke-Litwin Model (1992) highlights how individual skill and
knowledge influences the transactional elements of structure, procedure, and management.
Consistent with this model, the transactional influence findings highlight how the lack of DEI
related knowledge and skills along with the undervaluing of the CDO role among campus
partners can influence the execution of transactional elements of the organization. Therefore,
when campus partners lack DEI related knowledge and skills and also do not value the role of
the CDO, the CDOs efforts to accomplish the college’s diversity agenda is also undermined at
136

the transactional level of the organization. The following section will provide these transactional
influence findings and how the findings relate to existing literature.
Knowledge and Skills for the CDO's Campus Partners
Though ranging in topic and focus, all 10 of the CDOs articulated specific areas of
knowledge they believed their campus partners needed to understand their work better. The
topics ranged from factual knowledge such as basic terminology and development of a lexicon
regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion to more extensive conceptual knowledge such as racial
oppression and white supremacy. Nine of the CDOs also shared that their campus partners that,
beyond the factual and conceptual DEI-related information, campus collaborators also needed to
have procedural knowledge to apply these frames to daily functions such as hiring, teaching,
policy and procedure creation, and change advocacy (transactional influences). While many of
the CDOs mentioned that workshops and training were part of their roles (Table 16), this finding
indicates that CDOs may encounter less organizational resistance if their campus partners had
the factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge related to the college's diversity agenda. This
finding aligns with Williams and Wade-Golden's study (2013), which found that one of the
effective strategies utilized by CDOs to advance the college's diversity agenda is "educational
strategies." As seen in Table 9, Williams and Wade-Golden (2013) provide the following
examples of diversity educational strategies: briefings with the senior leadership team,
conference sessions, training programs, intergroup-dialogue programming, and shaping general
education requirements in the curricula.
Motivation Through Value Attribution to the CDO Role
When asked how their collaborators viewed the importance of their role, the interviewed
CDOs had various responses, most commenting that it depended on the collaborator. The CDOs
137

shared that though some campus partners might see their role as important and as a
"collaborator," others might view their role as "administrative bloat" or an obstacle to endure,
such as the experience three CDOs shared regarding faculty hiring. One participant also called
attention to the social identity of the collaborator in how they might view the CDO's work: where
someone with a marginalized identity might view the CDO role as "integral," others with more
privileged identities might view his role as "peripheral." The findings indicated that CDOs might
also encounter resistance through a lack of valuing their role or work in the college. This finding
is consistent with research related to the accountability strategies deployed by CDOs. According
to Williams and Wade-Golden (2013), among other strategies (as described in Table 9), one of
these accountability strategies is to provide incentives and structures to increase individual's
value of the diversity work. Providing incentives and rewards to recognize DEI contributions can
facilitate successful diversity organizational learning programs (Chun & Evans, 2018; Kezar,
2007b).
Given the interconnected nature of the transformational, transactional, and individual
organizational elements of the Burk-Litwin Model (1992), the findings of this study support
research that demonstrates the impact of strategy and mission in enforcing organizational values,
from top leadership positions down to individual members of the organization. In this regard,
where there seemed to be a variance in whether or not the CDOs institution were implementing a
strategic diversity plan or culture of Inclusive Excellence, there was also variance in how
individuals placed value on the CDO's work. The overall findings of this study demonstrate that
the organization must attend to the transformational, transactional, and individual organizational
influences upon the CDOs ability to create institutional change. As all of these influences have a
ripple effect through the organizational change process, colleges must ensure that organizational
138

resistance is mitigated at each level of the organization and enhance the support for the CDOs
work from the transformational elements through the day-to-day transactional elements and
individually with campus partners. Failure to address resistance at any level of the organization
serves to hinder the overall effectiveness and undermines the executive level role of the CDO in
creating DEI related institutional change.
Recommendations for Practice
This section will review recommendations based on the key findings from the present
study. The following recommendations (Table 17) will address the problem of practice of
organizational resistance toward Chief Diversity Officers within small liberal arts colleges in the
United States.

139

Table 17
Key Influences, Findings, and Recommendations
Key influences Key influence findings Recommendations
Transformational: The
leadership role of the
president

The organization needs to
develop the president’s
leadership and capacity
regarding DEI-related
competency.
Support presidential
development of DEI
leadership and
competency

Transactional: Importance of
reporting to the president,
titles, and access to the
senior leadership team

The organization needs to
structure the CDO position to
report to the President, share a
title similar to their executive-
level peers, and serve as a
member of the senior
leadership team.
Restructure the CDO
position to Report to the
President and Serve as
Senior Leadership Team
Member

Transactional: Inconsistency
in resources for the chief
diversity officer

The organization needs to
structure the CDO portfolio to
include a CDO unit with
administrative and
professional support and a
division including other
college DE-related offices and
departments.
Restructure the CDO
portfolio to include CDO
unit and DEI-related
departments

Individual: Lack of DEI-
related knowledge and
skills needed by
collaborators

The organization needs to
support the knowledge
development of faculty and
staff related to DEI work at
the college.
Support the DEI knowledge
development across
campus constituents

140

Recommendation 1: Support Presidential Development of DEI Leadership and
Competency
The organization needs to support the college president in developing diversity, equity,
and inclusion skills, knowledge, and capacity regarding institutional leadership for its diversity
agenda and related institutional change. In this study, the findings suggest that the president
plays a crucial role in addressing organizational resistance encountered by Chief Diversity
Officers in small liberal arts colleges. CDOs reported that the president set the tone for the
vision, mission, and culture of the organization's approach to equity and inclusion for the college,
which directs the CDO's work. When the President's DEI leadership and capability development
are supported, the president is positioned and equipped to champion the CDO's work and assist
with mitigating campus partners' resistance by imbuing the CDO with the power and authority
need to change policies or processes aligned with the college's diversity agenda. This
recommendation is supported by existing literature. Culturally relevant leadership is required for
institutional accountability (Horsford et al., 2011). As such, the president can drive equity and
inclusion work at the college (Kezar, 2007a, 2007b; Kezar & Eckel, 2008; Kezar et al., 2008).
Moreover, Stanley and colleagues (2019) found that presidential support is a key factor for
supporting the CDO in organizational change. Williams and Wade-Golden (2013) also
highlighted the importance of the president's support of the strategic diversity work. Therefore,
supporting the presidential development of DEI leadership and competency can address
organizational resistance at its vision-setting level.

141

Recommendation 2: Restructure the CDO Position to Report to the President and Serve as
a Senior Leadership Team Member
The organization needs to provide organizational structures that mirror the CDOs' peers'
reporting structure, title, and serving as a senior leadership team member. The present study's
findings suggest that the CDO’s work is best supported when they report directly to the
President. This reporting structure supports the CDO’s direct access to the president as an
influential leader, decision-maker, and the power and authority as the president's direct report
(Leon, 2014; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2013).
Additionally, the findings suggest that resistance toward the CDO might also decrease if
the CDO possesses a similar title to the CDO’s peers on the senior leadership team. This title
would more accurately reflect the scope, authority, and responsibility for institutional change of
the CDO position and place the CDO on a more leveled stance with their Vice President peers.
Moreover, with this reporting structure and title, the findings suggest that resistance may
decrease for the CDO if they are designated as members of the senior leadership team. The
findings indicate that serving as a part of the senior leadership team would allow the CDO to
have access to fellow Vice Presidents as leaders over their division, allow the CDO to provide
counsel or advocacy for DEI-related topics in decision-making conversations, and allow the
CDO to provide more powerful and influential inter-divisional connections and partnerships in
achieving the institution's diversity agenda. This recommendation is supported by Williams and
Wade-Golden (2013), who recommended examining the structural position of the CDO and
restructuring to ensure the position is appropriately titled and positioned to accomplish the
college's diversity agenda. Access to senior leadership support is needed for the CDO to make an
142

impact on institutional policies, practices, and systems (Alex-Assensoh, 2018; Mednick Takami,
2017; Wong, 2017).
The National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE)’s
Standards of Professional Practice (Appendix A) support the call for CDOs to work with senior
campus administrators, with six of the 16 standards directly articulating the need to work with
senior campus leaders to promote institutional change. For example, Standard Ten calls for
“Chief diversity officers work with senior administrators and members of the campus community
to assess, plan, and build institutional capacity for equity, diversity, and inclusion” (Worthington
et al., 2020). Additionally, Standard Eight also calls for CDOs to work collaboratively with
senior campus administrators to plan and develop the infrastructure for equity, diversity, and
inclusion to meet the needs of the campus community.” Ensuring that the CDO has a title that
matches their senior administrative peers and serves as a member of the senior leadership team
facilitates the CDO’s ability to meet this NADOHE standard of professional practice. Therefore,
restructuring the CDO position to report to the college president and serve on the senior
leadership team can address the organizational resistance CDOs face through their experience
with limited authority and limited access to institutional decision-making structures, such as the
senior leadership team.
Recommendation 3: Restructure the CDO Portfolio to Include CDO Unit and DEI-Related
Departments
The organization needs to provide human resources to the CDO unit or division, for
example, expanding the CDO unit or office and restructuring DEI-related departments at the
college to report under the CDO's division portfolio. Nine of the 10 CDOs interviewed in this
study indicated that they would augment their current staffing structure, regardless of their
143

current structure composition. CDOs under the Collaborative Officer Model expressed the desire
to add staffing in the form of administrative assistance and full-time staff for programming and
additional strategic initiatives from the CDO office. CDOs who did have this base unit support
under the Unit-Based Model expressed the desire to move key DEI-related departments at the
college under their purview to create a division, such as the Office of Multicultural Affairs.
Lastly, even those CDOs with an existing Portfolio-Division Model discussed the desire to
further augment their division with other units supporting the college's diversity agenda. This
finding suggests that organizational resistance toward the CDO can be in the form of a lack of
staffing to support the full scope of the CDO's work. Williams and Wade-Golden (2013) stated
that the benefits of the Portfolio-Divisional Model include building consistency in CDO
capability with other senior-level college officers to coordinate and supervise leadership in the
college's diversity agenda, building synergy between different college units and compelling
collaborations regarding DEI topics, pooling of college funding and budgets across units for
more substantial influence and reach, and driving robust campus-wide diversity planning and a
center to bring alignment across functional areas. Structurally coordinating and consolidating
diversity learning programs is a key feature of successful diversity organizational learning
programs (Chun & Evans, 2020). Further, Marshall (2019) found that CDOs under the Portfolio-
Divisional archetype for their vertical structures are more likely to exhibit exemplary leadership
and promote five of the seven tenets of the Inclusive Excellence Model, resulting in higher
institutional commitment to DEI work. As the Portfolio-Divisional model increases the capacity
of the CDO, this model in turn facilitates greater probability in the CDOs ability to transform the
racial campus climate (Barros, 2020). Additionally, Clarke and Estes (2008) asserted that
individuals must have the proper resources (equipment, personnel, time, etc.) needed to achieve
144

their goals to create institutional change. In the absence of adequate resources, organizations
must ameliorate the shortage to align with the organizational priorities. In this regard, I
recommend that colleges assess the resources, human and financial, allotted to their CDO to
determine what shortages might be currently present. Once shortages and opportunities for
additional organizational alignment are identified, the research recommends working towards
restructuring the CDO unit and division to better provide human resources to the CDO’s
institutional change work.
Recommendation 4: Support the DEI-Related Knowledge Development Across Campus
Constituents
The organization needs to support campus constituents, particularly faculty and staff, in
developing DEI-related knowledge and capacity. This study's findings indicate that resistance
toward the CDO can be mitigated by increasing the DEI-related knowledge of campus partners,
specifically faculty and staff who collaborate with the CDO. The participants shared a range of
DEI-related knowledge and skillsets they believed they needed their collaborators to understand
their role. In this regard, CDOs may be more supported if their campus partners had foundational
DEI knowledge and theoretical and conceptual knowledge that might inform their ability to
apply these facts and concepts to their daily work regarding DEI-related job expectations.
Williams and Wade-Golden (2013) reported that one of the main strategies of CDOs in driving
institutional change is educational strategies, in which they utilize various education tactics to
improve the capacity and knowledge base of their colleagues. Chun and Evans (2020) also
identified “the development of a common vocabulary for defining diversity, inclusion,
organizational learning and related concepts such as cultural competence” as a key feature of
successful diversity organizational learning programs (p. 222), which is also supported by the
145

work of Stanley and colleagues (2019). Another key feature Chun and Evans (2020) identified
was the “mapping of current diversity learning initiatives” in order to coordinate the learning
across all college divisions and departments (p. 223). By supporting the development of DEI-
related knowledge for campus constituents, colleges can address the organizational resistance
CDOs encounter, which takes the form of greater demands on their time and energy to
compensate for the lack of their collaborators' DEI capacity.
Integrated Recommendations
As this study uses the Burke-Litwin Organizational Change Model (1992) in the
theoretical and conceptual framework, I offer the following implementation plan for integrated
recommendations guided by the change management process proposed by W. Warner Burke
(2018). The following phases of change comprise Burke’s (2018) change management process:
prelaunch, launch, post-launch, and sustain change. The model highlights the role of
organizational leadership in the change process. In this section of the chapter, I utilize Burke's
(2018) change management phases (Figure 6) to propose an implementation plan for the current
study's recommendations. The primary leader discussed will be the president of the college.
Burke (2018) names that the nature of the process, though presented linearly, is such that
multiple phases can be active at once. Given that the present study is a field study, this
implementation plan may serve as a series of suggestions that can be selected based on the
organization's specific context. However, the implementation plan is rooted in the
recommendations mentioned above derived from the present study.

146

Figure 6
Burke-Litwin Change Management Process: Phases of Change

Note. From Organization Change: Theory and practice by W. Burke, 2018, SAGE. Copyright
2018 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

Prelaunch
The Prelaunch phase is focused primarily on reading the organization and the leader for
navigating the change management process. As a result, the prelaunch phase focuses on
leadership self-awareness, the external environment, establishing the need for change, and
clarifying vision and direction (Burke, 2018). Self-examination of the leader is stressed in this
model (Burke, 2108). The Prelaunch Phase of the model is a prime position for the first
recommendation to support the president's development of DEI leadership and competency. As
studies indicate (Kezar, 2007a, 2007b; Kezar & Eckel, 2008; Kezar et al., 2008), the president's
role in DEI leadership is integral to the success of DEI agendas. As such, in the prelaunch phase,
the president might choose to conduct an examination and assessment of their skills, knowledge,
and abilities regarding the college's diversity agenda. The president may also wish to identify
Prelaunch
•Leadership self-
examination
•Gathering
information
from the
external
environment
•Establishing
need for change
•Providing clarity
of vision and
direction
Launch
•Communicate
need for change
•Initial activities
•Deal with
resistance
Postlaunch
•Multiple
leverage
•Taking the heat
•Consistancy
•Perserverance
•Repeat the
message
Sustain the
Change
•Unanticipated
consequences
•Momentum
•Choosing
successors
•Launching yet
again new
iniatitives
147

external leadership programs focusing on presidential leadership in the realms of equity and
inclusion offered by higher education institutes or consultants to further the president's capacity
and tolerance for resistance toward this process.
The next focus of the Prelaunch Phase identifies the vital role of the external
environment. The following data points are identified by Burke (2018) regarding the external
environment: changing student needs, changes in technology, changes in government
regulations, the related activity of competing colleges, and the status of the global and local
economy. In this regard, the prelaunch phase of the change management process may include
benchmarking with other small liberal arts colleges regarding vertical structure CDO and the
resources allotted to the CDO to improve resource allocation for the CDOs unit and division.
Data-driven benchmarking can enhance organizational performance (Bogue & Hall, 2003).
Additionally, this phase calls for examining how legislation and government regulations may
impact the CDO and college-related to its diversity agenda. As such, this data might help guide
the restructuring process. Moreover, the fourth recommendation – support for increased DEI
knowledge and skills among the college faculty and staff—would require having information
about programming and initiatives at other small liberal arts colleges to promote DEI capacity
building among faculty and staff. This might also include understanding how technology has
advanced to help support training and workshops related to the fourth recommendation.
The Prelaunch Phase also calls for establishing the need for change and providing clarity
of vision and direction. Burke (2018) suggests it is the college President's responsibility to
promote the need for change. Applying to all four recommendations, the president must work
with the senior leadership team to provide internal data and research that can create the urgency
and need for change. This data might include the CDO position's turnover rate, postmortem
148

evaluations on crisis or incidents that were DEI-related or may have benefited from greater
involvement and leadership from the CDO, and data that supports how the CDO's work
contributes to improved student outcomes, particularly for marginalized students. The need for
change might also be facilitated through proposing renewed action derived from (or creation of)
a college strategic plan dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Burke (2018) stated that
providing clarity of vision and direction might crafting a mission and vision statement that gives
direction to the change process. Therefore, if an institution does not currently possess a strategic
plan or mission vision that supports the CDO’s work, crafting this mission and vision or strategic
plan might include stakeholders from across the college who are either already working directly
with the CDO or new college officers willing to champion the implementation process of the
recommendations for restructuring and capacity building for the college. These statements and
plans can serve as the guiding documents for the next phase's activities: Launch.
Launch
In Burke's model (2018), the Launch phase includes communicating the need for the
change, initial activities, and dealing with resistance. In terms of communicating the change for
this study's recommendations, the college's institutional type should be considered. For example,
small liberal arts colleges are heavily guided by their shared governance structure and tend to be
more relational in nature. As such, developing a communication plan regarding the restructure of
the CDO Office and the launch of initiatives to support the knowledge and skill development of
faculty and staff should consider the various stakeholder groups within the college and shared
governance structure. For example, communicating the need for change may start with the
college's existing cross-divisional diversity committee, where various representatives from a
cross-section of the college may lead and promote the communication efforts. It might also
149

include building a coalition of support for the changes (Moncloa et al., 2019; Williams, 2008)
within the student, faculty, staff, and alumni governing boards to promote the CDO restructure's
importance new faculty and staff education initiatives. While the president might play a
significant role in communicating the need for the change campus-wide, the individual leaders in
shared governance might have a higher impact on their respective stakeholder groups in creating
buy-in for the restructure and programming.
Similarly, the initial activities need to account for stakeholder groups' different needs and
the specific college's context. Based on this study's findings and the existing literature, I
recommend the following elements to consider in determining initial activities: budget
allocation, space allocation, and current level of buy-in from stakeholders regarding the change.
In the case of budget and space allocation, the college must first determine if the funds and space
are available to support the restructuring of the CDO office and the implementation of training
and workshops for faculty and staff. Both might require fundraising and institutionalizing the
budget so that the change does not rely on "soft funds" or the specific whim of a donor to sustain
the funding necessary for the CDO Office and the ongoing DEI training for faculty and staff.
Additionally, if space is unavailable for a new office for the CDO unit or training, the president
might wish to identify a space plan, rearranging the current space, or make plans to build space.
Lastly, stakeholders' current buy-in level can determine what initial activities might enhance that
buy-in or directly address resistance. The findings of this study suggest that buy-in is particularly
important given campus partners’ resistance to DEI-related changes to policies and procedures.
Initial activities might also focus on the restructure and planning according to the academic
calendar to ensure minimal disruption to various stakeholders involved in the restructuring, such
as offices moved under the CDO or the students seeking support from the related offices.
150

Additionally, for the DEI education program for faculty and staff, an initial activity might be
working with faculty and staff campus partners and the CDO office to build the program's
structure, timeline, and evaluation process, with a planned launch date.
Burke (2018) stated that resistance to change presents as "blind, ideological, and
political." As further supported by the present study's findings, resistance toward restructuring
the CDO office and ongoing DEI training for faculty and staff can also benefit from building
advocates within each constituent group and governing body. For example, involving the faculty
in the restructuring process of the CDO's unit and portfolio may promote additional support for
faculty in meeting expectations regarding faculty hiring and DEI-related job expectations.
Additionally, involving the faculty and staff in creating and forming the DEI training may curtail
unforeseen educational programming criticism.
Post Launch
The Postlaunch can be seen as further implementation. As acknowledged in previous
sections, given the nature of this present field study, the implementation process will differ
depending on the college's specific context. The same is true for the Postlaunch phase. This
phase focuses on the multiple levers for change and the president's capacity to take the heat for
the change, provide consistency, persevere, and repeat the message. Burke (2018) identified the
following as levers for change: process reengineering, crafting mission statements, developing a
new processes, training, and development, crafting values and leadership behaviors that
exemplify the college's values, incentivizing performance aligned with the change, developing a
'safety culture,' team building, and establishing self-directed workgroups. Many of these levers
are most applicable to the restructuring process for the CDO office and position. As the
restructuring of the CDO office and division will require restructuring offices from other
151

divisions, such as Student Life and Academic Affairs under the CDO's division; new processes,
mission statements, and teams will need to be created in order to support the changed structure.
For example, identity-based student groups that may have been accountable to the Student
Activities Office under Student Life might now be accountable to the CDO division and benefit
from processes and procedures that better support their organization's purpose. Additionally, as
there might be some resistance towards the restructuring, training and team development might
address this resistance and develop more support for the restructuring.
As Burke (2018) names "training and development" as a lever of importance in the
change management process, the Postlaunch Phase is an ideal location for implementing
Recommendation 4, which supports the DEI knowledge and skill development of faculty and
staff. This recommendation can be delivered through training, job aids, and education, focusing
on developing the factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge identified by the present study
participants. This knowledge includes foundational knowledge in DEI terminology and concepts
and relating those specific terms and concepts to one's specific department, role, and job to
practice more equity-mindedness practices (McNair et al., 2020). This phase also focuses on the
president's role in "taking the heat," providing consistency for the change, preserving, and
repeating the message. In this regard, the president's participation in development regarding DEI
leadership and capacity might play a significant role in this phase. The president must be
prepared for criticism and further resistance to change, particularly as identified by the present
study’s participants regarding resistance to changes involving policy and procedures that may
occur as a result of the restructuring and greater DEI capacity developed among college officers.
Burke (2018) explicitly names the president's role in telling the narrative or story for the change.
In this regard, the president must not only be prepared to share the ongoing developments related
152

to the restructure or DEI capacity development of faculty and staff but must be able to speak
directly with constituents regarding the extent and envisioned outcomes of the change process.
Sustaining the Change
The final yet ongoing phase of Burke's process (2018) is "Sustaining the Change." In this
phase, Burke (2018) focuses on addressing unanticipated consequences, sustaining momentum
for the change, choosing successors, and launching new initiatives. As part of this last phase,
creating an evaluation plan promotes accountability in the change management process. While
Burke (2018) does not explicitly identify the evaluation process, it is clear that having data,
whether evaluative or summative, will help identify unanticipated consequences and identify the
organizational needs that will inform new initiatives. For this implementation plan, I recommend
the Logic Model Program Evaluation approach to evaluation specifically for Recommendations
2 and 3, which examines the inputs, activities, outputs, short-term and long-term outcomes, and
the impact of the various changes. While for Recommendations 1 and 4, I recommend
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick's model (2016) for evaluation, which focuses on four levels for
training evaluation: (a) reaction, (b) learning, (c) impact, and (d) results. Promoting an evaluation
plan can address how learning is measured, which in turn promotes institutional accountability
(Dowd & Shieh, 2013). These evaluative processes should be conducted regularly and be utilized
to inform additional initiatives and drive momentum.
This phase specifically names "choosing successors" as an essential part of the change
process. Existing research (Kezar et al., 2008) suggests a similar notion regarding the president's
role in DEI change work. The president was able to hire individuals into the organization that
helps drive the DEI change. Similarly, to ensure that the recommendations continue to be
153

implemented and evaluated, identifying leaders within the organization to propel the DEI
changes will be vital to the longevity of the change and its ultimate success.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study aimed to understand the transformational, transactional, and individual
organizational influences impacting the CDO's ability to impact institutional change in small
liberal arts colleges. In meeting this goal, I interviewed 10 CDOs from small liberal arts colleges.
As such, this sample size is too small to attain statistically significant data; however, it meets the
criteria for a qualitative study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Moreover, I chose small liberal arts
colleges as the setting of this study. Creswell and Creswell (2018) highlighted that a limitation of
a study can be the narrower scope that cannot be applied to other institutional. In the case of the
present study, the narrow scope of small liberal arts colleges would limit the application of the
findings to other institutional types, such as large research institutions.
The methodology also provided limitations for this study. The methods of this study are
focus on individual narratives of CDOs through interviews. Creswell and Creswell (2018)
identified the limited nature of the perspectives of interview participants as a potential limitation
for qualitative research. As such, the present study is limited by the CDO narratives told through
the perspective and views of the CDO, the information of the interview provided is limited to the
scope of knowledge or vantage point of the CDO. For example, each CDO had their specific
educational and professional background, institution type, social identities, and unique, specific
college settings that inform their contributions. Additionally, each CDO varied in their ability to
articulate broader organizational culture, settings, and trends.
In contrast to limitations, delimitations account for my specific choices regarding what
elements are included or excluded in developing the study plan (Simon & Goes, 2013). One
154

delimitation is that the study focused on CDOs currently working in small liberal arts colleges.
Another delimitation in the study is that my background is in diversity, equity, and inclusion
work within student affairs in higher education. My former career consisted of 13 years in
student affairs in higher education, with approximately 5 years dedicated to direct diversity
functions as part of her roles. Moreover, I currently work as a chief diversity officer in an
independent girls' middle and high school. To mitigate this bias, I used the practice of
documenting observer notes to capture personal thoughts and opinions when collecting and
analyzing data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Implications for Future Research
Further research is needed in order to address the problem of organizational resistance
toward CDOs. The current study focused on the institutional type of small liberal arts colleges.
Because of the different institutional type cultures and structures, future research could examine
how the transformational, transactional, and individual organizational influences on the CDO
might differ at different institution types, such as a large research university, a community
college, or elite colleges and universities. Another area for future research would also include
utilizing a case study methodology with the same conceptual framework to gain a different
perspective of the organizational influences upon the CDO. The case study methodology would
provide insight from different stakeholders, such as the President or college students.
Additionally, a case study includes a document analysis such as college statements or websites
devoted explicitly to diversity, equity, inclusion, and the CDO's office. Additionally, while this
study utilized the principle of critical race theory (CRT) methodology of providing people of
color's lived experiences, further research is necessary to consider how the racial identity of the
CDOs and CRT might be intentionally integrated into the conceptual framework. This
155

integration of CRT would provide a deeper analysis into how organizational resistance relates to
systemic and individual racism.
Further research is also needed regarding exploring the external factors mentioned by
some of the participants, specifically the impact of the national attention regarding the murders
of Black Americans in the summer of 2020 and the role of student demands and protests
regarding DEI issues. While the present study focused on the internal organizational factors, the
theoretical framework of Burke-Litwin (1992) does highlight the role of external factors in
necessitating organizational change. Further research regarding the role of external events and
students as “boundary spanners” (Safford et al., 2017) can provide a more robust analysis
regarding the influences on the CDO’s ability to impact institutional change, which includes
external influences.
From the findings of this study, the CDOs' narratives pointed to the mental toll and
demands of the CDO role, specifically when experiencing organizational resistance. Further
research might include examining turnover rates and the causation of turnover for CDO
positions. Moreover, given the organizational resistance from the institution's various
organizational levels, future research could also include examining the motivation or self-
efficacy practices of the CDO in countering organizational resistance.
Conclusion
This study's problem of practice was the organizational resistance toward Chief Diversity
Officers in higher education. Despite the fact the Chief Diversity Officer position was created to
propel a college's diversity agenda, Chief Diversity Officers are limited in their ability to meet
the institutional demands of their position due to their experience organizational resistance in the
form of the lack of authority and institutional decision-making power (Leon, 2014; Williams &
156

Wade-Golden, 2013; Wilson, 2013), limited personnel and financial resources (Williams &
Wade-Golden, 2013), and interpersonal difficulty with campus partners when collaborating on
institutional change (Marana, 2016; Nixon, 2017). The present study specifically sought to give
voice to the lived experiences of Chief Diversity Officers at small liberal arts colleges utilizing
semi-structured interviews to center the CDOs' lived experiences with organizational resistance.
In interviewing 10 CDOs, the findings of the current study affirmed the existing research
and showcased that CDOs experience resistance at all levels of the college and in different
aspects of their work. At the transformational level, the findings show the CDOs experience
resistance through lack of leadership from the president and senior leadership teams of the
college and the lack of setting a culture and strategy for achieving the college's diversity agenda.
Moreover, if the CDO does not report to the president, does not possess a title that is not
equivalent to their Vice President peers, and is not given division-level financial and personnel
resources, the CDO is likely to experience a lack of authority and increased demands on their
capacity when moving forward with equity-driven institutional change. Lastly, given the highly
collaborative nature of the CDO role (Cooper, 2014; Gravley-Stack et al., 2016; Leon, 2014;
Nixon, 2017; Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007, 2013; Wilson, 2013), the findings from this study
demonstrated that there is heavy demand on the CDOs capacity, time, and energy when their
campus partners do not possess the factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge related to
diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education.
While each CDO in small liberal arts colleges may vary in their experiences with the
above findings, this study underscores the interconnected nature of organizational resistance
faced by Chief Diversity Officers who are tasked with leading the college's diversity agenda.
This study's recommendations serve as a call for higher education leaders in small liberal arts
157

colleges to assess how their organization is providing the necessary organizational support and
resources for Chief Diversity Officers through the elements of presidential leadership, financial
and human resources, and supporting the DEI capacity-building of staff and faculty across the
campus. Addressing these opportunities for establishing better organizational support for the
CDO can powerfully enhance the role and work of the CDOs on small liberal arts colleges and
make good on the racial justice and DEI commitments higher education promises to students and
scholars from marginalized backgrounds. The recommendations can facilitate realizing the full
purpose of establishing the CDO position by creating more sustainable and supportive
environments for CDOs to lead institutional change toward establishing more diverse, inclusive,
and equitable small liberal arts colleges. Most importantly, the findings from this research
indicate that colleges must proactively and decisively address the burnout and short tenure of
their current Chief Diversity Officers as they experience organizational resistance toward their
work. If higher education fails to provide the organizational structure, resources, and culture for
Chief Diversity Officers to succeed, colleges risk turning an opportunity for innovation through
the emergence of the CDO role into a hollow, shallow, and symbolic executive-level position
that instead maintains the status quo of inequity and exclusion rather than uplift equity, inclusion,
and transformation in higher education.

158

References
Adserias, R. P., Charleston, L. J., & Jackson, J. F. L. (2017). What style of leadership is best
suited to direct organizational change to fuel institutional diversity in higher education?
Race, Ethnicity and Education, 20(3), 315–331.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2016.1260233
Aguilar, C., & Bauer, J. (2014). The critical first year: What new chief diversity officers need to
succeed. Witt/Kieffer.
Ahmed, S. (2007a). The language of diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(2), 235–256.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870601143927
Ahmed, S. (2007b). “You end up doing the document rather than doing the doing”: Diversity,
race equality and the politics of documentation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(4), 590–
609. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701356015
Alex-Assensoh, Y. M. (2018, June 5). Hiring a Diversity Officer Is Only the First Step. Here Are
the Next 7. The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://www.chronicle.com/article/Hiring-
a-Diversity-Officer-Is/243591
Antonio, A. L. (2001). Diversity and the influence of friendship groups in college. The Review of
Higher Education, 25(1), 63–89. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2001.0013
Antonio, A. L., Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., Kenny, D. A., Levin, S., & Milem, J. F. (2004). Effects
of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psychological Science, 15(8),
507–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00710.x
Arnold, J., & Kowalski-Braun, M. (2012). The journey to an inaugural chief diversity officer:
Preparation, implementation and beyond. Innovative Higher Education, 37(1), 27–36.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9185-9
159

Association of American Colleges & Universities. (n.d). Making excellence inclusive.
https://www.aacu.org/making-excellence-inclusive
Association of American Colleges & Universities. (n.d). Advocacy for Liberal Education.
https://www.aacu.org/advocacy-liberal-education-0
Association of Executive Search and Leadership Consultants. (2011). Witt/Kieffer: Chief
diversity officers assume larger leadership role. https://www.aesc.org/insights/thought-
leadership/c-suite-roles/wittkieffer-chief-diversity-officers-assume-larger
Astin, A. W. (1993). Diversity and multiculturalism on the campus: How are students affected?
[JSTOR.]. Change, 25(2), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1993.9940617
Baker, V. L., & Baldwin, R. G. (2014). A case study of liberal arts colleges in the 21st century:
Understanding organizational change and evolution in higher education. Innovative
Higher Education, 40(3), 247-261. doi: 10.1007/s10755-014-9311-6
Banerji, S. (2005). Diversity officers-coming to a campus near you? Diverse Issues in Higher
Education, 22(20), 38.
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36(1), 44–52.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380409605083
Bogue, E. G., & Hall, K. B. (2003). Quality and accountability in higher education: Improving
policy, enhancing performance. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Bowman, N. A. (2009). College diversity courses and cognitive development among students
from privileged and marginalized groups. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(3),
182–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016639
160

Buckingham, M. & Curt Coffman, C. (1999). How great managers develop top people.
Workforce Management, 78(6), 102–.
Burke, W. (2018). Organization change: Theory and practice. SAGE.
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and
change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306
Chang, M., Astin, A., & Kim, D. (2004). Cross-racial interaction among undergraduates: Some
consequences, causes, and patterns. Research in Higher Education, 45(5), 529–553.
Retrieved June 25, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/40197381
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000032327.45961.33
Chang, M. J. (2002). Preservation or transformation: Where’s the real educational discourse on
diversity? The Review of Higher Education, 25(2), 125–140.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2002.0003
Chang, M. J., Witt‐Sandis, D., & Hakuta, K. (1999). The Dynamics of Race in Higher
Education: An Examination of the Evidence. Equity & Excellence in Education, 32(2),
12–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1066568990320203
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. IAP.
Cole, E. R., & Harper, S. R. (2017). Race and rhetoric: An analysis of college presidents’
statements on campus racial incidents. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(4),
318–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000044
Cooper, K. J. (2014). Rise of the chief diversity officer. Diverse Issues in Higher Education,
31(20), 28.
161

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage.
Davis, S., & Harris, J. C. (2015). But we didn’t mean it like that: A critical race analysis of
campus responses to racial incidents. Journal of Critical Scholarship on Higher
Education and Student Affairs, 2(1), 6.
Denson, N., & Chang, M. J. (2009). Racial diversity matters: The impact of diversity-related
student engagement and institutional context. American Educational Research Journal,
46(2), 322–353. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208323278
Douglas, T. M. O., & Little, M. (2017). Voices from the field: What does a chief diversity officer
do when voices rise?: An interview with Dr. Kevin McDonald, chief diversity officer of
the University of Missouri System and vice-chancellor for inclusion, diversity and equity
at the University of Missouri. The Journal of Negro Education, 86(3), 381–391.
https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.86.3.0381
Dowd, A. C., & Shieh, L. T. (2013). Community college financing: Equity, efficiency, and
accountability. The NEA almanac of higher education, 37-65.
Edman, J. L., & Brazil, B. (2009). Perceptions of campus climate, academic efficacy and
academic success among community college students: An ethnic comparison. Social
Psychology of Education, 12(3), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-008-9082-y
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement, Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2003, from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/bridging-gap-between-standards-
andachievement
162

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. 136 S. Ct. 218 (2016). Retrieved from LexisNexis
Academic.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gravley-Stack, K., Ray, M., & Peterson, C. M. (2016). Understanding the subjective experiences
of the chief diversity officer: AQ method study. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education
9(2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000012
Gratz v. Bollinger, 530 U.S. 244, 123 S. Ct. 2411 (2003).
Grutter v. Bollinger, 306, 123 S. Ct. 2325 (2003).
Harris, J. C., Barone, R. P., & Davis, L. P. (2015). Who benefits?: A critical race analysis of the
(d) evolving language of inclusion in higher education. Thought & Action, 2015, 21–38.
Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for
institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(120), 7–24.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.254
Harvey, W. B. (2014). Chief diversity officers and the wonderful world of academe. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 7(2), 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036721
Hoffman, G. D., & Mitchell, T. D. (2016). Making diversity “everyone’s business”: A discourse
analysis of institutional responses to student activism for equity and inclusion. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 9(3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000037
Horsford, S., Grosland, T., & Gunn, K. M. (2011). Pedagogy of the personal and professional:
Toward a framework for culturally relevant leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 21,
582– 606.
163

Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts for conflict. The Journal of Higher
Education, 63(5), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1992.11778388
Hurtado, S., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., Allen, W. R., & Milem, J. F. (1998). Enhancing campus
climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. The Review of
Higher Education, 21(3), 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1998.0003
Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. B., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T.,
& Longerbeam, S. D. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year
undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student
Development, 48(5), 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0054
Kezar, A. (2007a). Learning from and with students: College presidents creating organizational
learning to advance diversity agendas. NASPA Journal, 44(3), 578–610.
https://doi.org/10.2202/0027-6014.1837
Kezar, A. (2007b). Tools for a time and place: Phased leadership strategies to institutionalize a
diversity agenda. Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 413–439.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2007.0025
Kezar, A. (2008). Understanding leadership strategies for addressing the politics of diversity. The
Journal of Higher Education, 79(4), 406–441.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772109
Kezar, A. (2013). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203115060
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2008). Advancing diversity agendas on campus: Examining transactional
and transformational presidential leadership styles. International Journal of Leadership
in Education, 11(4), 379–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120802317891
164

Kezar, A., Eckel, P., Contreras-McGavin, M., & Quaye, S. (2008). Creating a web of support:
An important leadership strategy for advancing campus diversity. Higher Education,
55(1), 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9068-2
Kramer, M. (2000). Making it last forever: The institutionalization of service learning.
Corporation for National Service.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Ladson-Billings, G. J., & Tate, W. F. (2006). Toward a critical race theory of education. In A.
Disxon & C. Rousseau (Eds.), Critical race theory in education: All God’s children got a
song (pp. 11–30). Routledge.
Lang, E. M. (1999). Distinctively American: The liberal arts college. Daedalus, 128(1), 133-150.
Lang, J. A., & Yandell, L. (2019). Diversity language as system maintenance: Toward alternative
frameworks for addressing racism at predominantly White institutions. Christian Higher
Education, 18(5), 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2018.1517621
Leon, R. A. (2014). The chief diversity officer: An examination of CDO models and strategies.
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(2), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035586
LePeau, L. A., Hurtado, S. S., & Davis, R. J. (2018). What institutional websites reveal about
diversity-related partnerships between academic and student affairs. Innovative Higher
Education, 43(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-017-9412-0
LePeau, L. A., Hurtado, S. S., & Williams, L. (2019). Institutionalizing diversity agendas:
Presidents’ councils for diversity as mechanisms for strategic change. Journal of Student
Affairs Research and Practice, 56(2), 123–137.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2018.1490306
165

Lopez, G. E. (2004). Interethnic contact, curriculum, and attitudes in the first year of college. The
Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00100.x
Mahler-Rogers, D. (2017). Higher education administrators’ response to student activism and
protests. Higher Education Politics & Economics, 3(2), 1.
Malewski, E., & Jaramillo, N. (2016). Emerging from within: How chief diversity officers can
use organizational sagas to advance diversity. Insight intro Diversity.
https://www.insightintodiversity.com/emerging-from-within-how-chief-diversity-
officers-can-use-organizational-sagas-to-advance-diversity/
Marana, J. A. J. (2016). The lived experiences of women of color chief diversity officers
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Claremont Graduate University.
McNair, T. B., Bensimon, E. M., & Malcom-Piqueux, L. (2020). From equity talk to equity
walk: Expanding practitioner knowledge for racial justice in higher education. John
Wiley & Sons.
Mednick Takami, L. (2017) Chief Diversity Officers in U.S. Higher Education: Impacting the
Campus Climate for Diversity (Order No. 10286152) [Doctoral dissertation, California
State University, Long Beach]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Milem, J., Chang, M., & Antonio, A. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A research-
based perspective. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Milem, J. F., & Cabrera, N. L. (2012). Organizational context for promoting diversity in higher
education. Encyclopedia of Diversity in Education, 3, 1635–1637.
166

Moncloa, F., Horrillo, S. J., Espinoza, D., & Hill, R. (2019). Embracing Diversity and Inclusion:
An Organizational Change Model to Increase Intercultural Competence. Journal of
Extension, 57(6). Retrieved from https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol57/iss6/25
Morse, J. M. (1995). The Significance of Saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 147–
149. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239500500201
Nelson Laird, T. F. (2005). College students’ experiences with diversity and their effects on
academic self-confidence, social agency, and disposition toward critical thinking.
Research in Higher Education, 46(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-
2966-1
Nelson Laird, T. F., Engberg, M. E., & Hurtado, S. (2005). Modeling accentuation effects:
Enrolling in a diversity course and the importance of social action engagement. The
Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 448–476. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2005.0028
Nixon, M. L. (2017). Experiences of women of color university chief diversity officers. Journal
of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(4), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000043
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. SAGE.
Nuñez, A. M. (2009). A critical paradox? Predictors of Latino students’ sense of belonging in
college. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(1), 46–61.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014099
Olivier, B. (2017). The use of mixed-methods research to diagnose the organisational
performance of a local government. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 43(0), a1453.
https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v43i0.1453
167

Parker, E. (2015). Exploring the Establishment of the Office of the Chief Diversity Officer in
Higher Education: A Multisite Case Study (Order No. 10016542) [Doctoral dissertation,
The University of Iowa]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Pascarella, E. T., Palmer, B., Moye, M., & Pierson, C. T. (2001). Do diversity experiences
influence the development of critical thinking? Journal of College Student Development,
42(3), 257.
Pifer, M. J., Baker, V. L., & Lunsford, L. G. (2015). Academic departments as networks of
informal learning: Faculty development at liberal arts colleges. International Journal for
Academic Development, 20(2), 178-192. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2015.1028065
Pihakis, J., Paikeday, T. S., Armstrong, K., & Meneer, E. (2019). The emergence of the chief
diversity officer role in higher education. Russell Reynolds Associates.
https://www.russellreynolds.com/ insights/thought-leadership/the-emergence-of-the-
chief-diversity-officer-role-in-higher-education
Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Relationships among structural diversity, informal peer
interactions and perceptions of the campus environment. The Review of Higher
Education, 29(4), 425–450. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2006.0037
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A Motivational Science Perspective on the Role of Student Motivation in
Learning and Teaching Contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S. Ct. 2733 (1978).
Rojas Joo, J. (2018). Advocating for a Diversity and Inclusion Commitment at Liberal Arts
Colleges: Essential Conversations in the Role of the Chief Diversity Officer. In Campus
168

Diversity Triumphs (Vol. 20, pp. 221–233). Emerald Publishing Limited.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-364420180000020018
Safford, H. D., Sawyer, S. C., Kocher, S. D., Hiers, J. K., & Cross, M. (2017). Linking
knowledge to action: the role of boundary spanners in translating ecology. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 15(10), 560-568.
Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. (2013). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success.
Dissertation Success.
Solórzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and
campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. The
Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60–73.
Solórzano, D., & Yosso, T. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800103
Stanley, C. A., Watson, K. L., Reyes, J. M., & Varela, K. S. (2019). Organizational change and
the chief diversity officer: A case study of institutionalizing a diversity plan. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 12(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000099
Steven, K., & Stephen, R. (2000). The Making of the Liberal Arts College Identity.
In Distinctively American (1st ed., pp. 1–26). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793121-1
Stewart, D. L. (2017) Language of appeasement. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/ views/2017/03/30/colleges-need-language-shift-not-
one-you-think-essay
169

Strayhorn, T. L. (2009). Fittin’in: Do diverse interactions with peers affect sense of belonging for
Black men at predominantly White institutions? Journal of Student Affairs Research and
Practice, 45(4), 953–979. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.2009
Stuart, R. (2010, May). Diversity to the next level. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 27(8),
12–14. http://diverseeducation.com/
Suarez, C., Anderson, M., & Young, K. (2018). The changing roles and contributions of campus
diversity offices and their influence on campus culture. Metropolitan universities, 29(1),
64-76.
The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (2017). Size & Setting
Classification Description. Retrieved April 6, 2021
from https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/classification_descriptions/size_setting.php.
Umbach, P. D., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Student experiences with diversity at liberal arts colleges:
Another claim for distinctiveness. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 169-192.
doi:10.135/jhe.2006.0008
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership. Aurora, CO: McREL.
Williams, B., & Tuitt, F. (in press). Carving out a humanity. Campus Rebellions and the Legacy
of Plantation Politics on College Campuses.
Williams, D. A. (2008). Beyond the Diversity Crisis Model: Decentralized Diversity Planning
and Implementation. Planning for Higher Education, 36(2), 27–41.
Williams, D. A. (2013). Strategic diversity leadership: Activating change and transformation in
higher education. Stylus.
170

Williams, D. A., Berger, J. B., & McClendon, S. A. (2005). Toward a model of inclusive
excellence and change in postsecondary institutions. Association of American Colleges
and Universities.
Williams D., & Clowney, C. (2007). Strategic planning for diversity and organizational change:
A primer for higher education leadership. Stylus.
Williams, D. A., & Wade-Golden, K. C. (2007). The chief diversity officer: A primer for college
and university presidents. American Council on Education.
Williams, D. A., & Wade-Golden, K. C. (2008). The complex mandate of a chief diversity
officer. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(5), B44.
Williams, D. A., & Wade-Golden, K. C. (2013). The chief diversity officer. Stylus Publishing,
LLC.
Wilson, J. L. (2013). Emerging trend: The chief diversity officer phenomenon within higher
education. The Journal of Negro Education, 82(4), 433–445.
https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.4.0433
Wong (Lua), K. (2017, November 1). Diversity Work in Contentious Times: The Role of the
Chief Diversity Officer [Text]. Association of American Colleges & Universities.
Worthington, R. L. (2012). Advancing scholarship for the diversity imperative in higher
education: An editorial [Editorial]. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(1), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027184
Worthington, R. L., Stanley, C. A., & Lewis, W. T., Sr. (2014). National Association of
Diversity Officers in Higher Education standards of professional practice for chief
diversity officers. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7, 227–234.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038391
171

Worthington, R., Stanley, C. S., & Smith, D. (2020, March) Standards of Professional Practice
for Chief Diversity Officers in Higher Education 2.0. National Association of Chief
Diversity Officers in Higher Education. https://www.nadohe.org/standards-of-
professional-practice-for-chief-diversity-officers
Yosso, T. J., Smith, W. A., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. G. (2009). Critical Race Theory, Racial
Microaggressions, and Campus Racial Climate for Latina/o Undergraduates. Harvard
Educational Review, 79(4), 659–691.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.4.m6867014157m707l

172

Appendix A: Standards of Professional Practice for Chief Diversity Officers in Higher
Education 2.0
National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education
March 2020
Task Force: Roger L. Worthington, PhD, Chair, Christine A. Stanley, PhD, Daryl G. Smith,
PhD
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) has established
standards of professional practice for chief[*] diversity officers (CDOs) in higher education.
Given the complexities of differing institutional types, missions, historical legacies, and current
contexts and the varied professional backgrounds and trajectories of CDOs, institutions will
inevitably differ in the details of the application of these standards in terms of critical features
including, but not limited to, (a) the organizational structure in the portfolio of the CDO, (b) the
allocation of human, fiscal, and physical resources, (c) the optimal degree of centralization
versus decentralization of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) efforts, (d) the processes of
building institutional and organizational capacity, (e) the unique organizational manifestations of
institutional change, and (f) the specific focus and metrics related to mechanisms of account-
ability. CDOs play the central administrative role in guiding, facilitating, and evaluating these
processes on behalf of the institution (Williams & Wade-Golden, 2007, 2013). The highest levels
of commitment, responsibility, and accountability reside throughout institutional leadership, in
which cabinet-level CDOs serve as the principal administrators to advance mission-driven efforts
through highly specialized knowledge and expertise. Through the standards of professional
practice that follow, NADOHE provides guidance and support to individuals serving as CDOs,
as well as to the institutions where they work.

Standard One: Chief diversity officers have ethical, legal, and practical obligations to frame
their work from comprehensive definitions of equity, diversity, and inclusion—
definitions that are inclusive with respect to a wide range of identities, differentiated in
terms of how they address unique identity issues and complex in terms of
intersectionality and context.
Standard Two: Chief diversity officers work to ensure that elements of equity, diversity, and
inclusion are embedded as imperatives in the institutional mission, vision, and strategic
plan.
Standard Three: Chief diversity officers are committed to planning, catalyzing, facilitating, and
evaluating processes of institutional and organizational change.
Standard Four: Chief diversity officers work with senior campus administrators and, when
appropriate, governing bodies (e.g., trustees or regents) to revise or remove the embedded
institutional policies, procedures, and norms that create differential structural barriers to
the access and success of students, faculty, and staff who belong to marginalized and
oppressed groups.
173

Standard Five: Chief diversity officers work with faculty, staff, students, and appropriate
institutional governance structures to promote inclusive excellence in teaching and
learning across the curriculum and within cocurricular programming.
Standard Six: Chief diversity officers work within a community of scholars to advocate for
inclusive excellence in research, creativity, and scholarship in all fields as fundamental to
the mission-driven work of the institution.
Standard Seven: Chief diversity officers are committed to drawing from existing scholarship
and using evidence-based practices to provide intellectual leadership in advancing equity,
diversity, and inclusion.
Standard Eight: Chief diversity officers work collaboratively with senior campus administrators
to plan and develop the infrastructure for equity, diversity, and inclusion to meet the
needs of the campus community.
Standard Nine: Chief diversity officers strive to optimize the balance between centralization
and decentralization of efforts to achieve equity, diversity, and inclusion throughout the
institution.
Standard Ten: Chief diversity officers work with senior administrators and members of the
campus community to assess, plan, and build institutional capacity for equity, diversity,
and inclusion.
Standard Eleven: Chief diversity officers work to ensure that institutions conduct periodic
campus climate assessments to illuminate strengths, challenges, and gaps in the
development and advancement of an equitable, inclusive climate for diversity.
Standard Twelve: Chief diversity officers work with senior administrators and campus
professionals to develop, facilitate, respond to, and assess campus protocols that address
hate-bias incidents, including efforts related to prevention, education, and intervention.
Standard Thirteen: Chief diversity officers work with senior administrators and campus
professionals to facilitate and assess efforts to mentor, educate, and respond to campus
activism, protests, and demonstrations about issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion.
Standard Fourteen: Chief diversity officers are committed to accountability for advancing
equity, diversity, and inclusion throughout the institution.
Standard Fifteen: Chief diversity officers work closely with senior administrators to ensure full
implementation of and compliance with the legal and regulatory requirements for the
institution.
Standard Sixteen: Chief diversity officers engage in their work in ways that reflect the highest
levels of ethical practice, pursuing self-regulation as higher education professionals.

References
Williams, D. A., & Wade-Golden, K. (2007). The chief diversity officer: A primer for college
and university presidents (Occasional paper, 3rd in a series). Washington, DC: American
Council on Education.
Williams, D. A., & Wade-Golden, K. (2013). The chief diversity officer: Strategy, structure, and
change management. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

174

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
1. How long have you been in your position?
2. Please describe your role or work as a diversity officer at your institution.
3. What are the aspects of your educational background that has prepared you for this work
and why do you feel that way?
a. How about career background?
4. Please share what factors were considered when creating the CDO position at your
institution and are the relevant to your role.
5. Does your institution have an established diversity strategic plan or strategic plan items
involving diversity?
a. How is your role involved in accomplishing this plan?
6. Please explain how you build relationships on campus in order to achieve your goals.
7. Why and how is working with staff and faculty important to accomplishing your goals as
a CDO?
8. How do you believe campus partners would describe your role at the college and why do
you feel this way?
a. How do you believe campus partners perceive the importance of your role?
9. What knowledge or understanding do you find your collaborators need to have in order to
understand your work and why do you feel this way?
10. What resources would you need in order to accomplish your work?
a. How do your current resources measure up?
11. To whom do you report in your college structure?
175

a. Please describe how that reporting structure relates to how you feel you meet your
goals at your campus.
b. To what extent does your supervisor’s position within the college influence what
you are able to accomplish?
12. Please describe your own unit (who reports to you, what are their positions, etc.).
a. To what extent does this structure facilitate accomplishing the goals of your role
as CDO?
b. If you were able to change your own unit, how would you do so?
c. For what reasons would you make these changes?
13. Think about a time you successfully created institutional change at your campus. Please
describe the key factors that helped facilitate that change.
a. If new - What would you propose/what do you see yourself implementing in the
next year?
i. What do you think were factors in accomplishing that?
Is there anything additional you’d like to share with me give all that we’ve discussed in this
interview?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Advancing equity and inclusion in higher education: the role of the chief diversity officer and the institution in creating more diverse campus climates

PDF

An examination of the impact of diversity initiatives and their supporting roles on organizational culture: an experiential study from the perspective of diversity personnel

PDF

Deckplate leadership: a promising practice study of chief petty officer development

PDF

Can collaboration among senior higher education leaders ensure organizational survival?

PDF

Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

Increasing organizational capacity at a small college to deploy revenue diversification strategies: an evaluation study

PDF

Cultivating culturally competent educators

PDF

Belonging: interplay of race and sexuality with Black gay undergraduate male students

PDF

Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study

PDF

Leadership in times of crisis management: an analyzation for success

PDF

Impressions of diversity: frontline fundraiser hiring in higher education

PDF

Identifying diversity solutions for the cybersecurity workforce shortage: a phenomenological qualitative study

PDF

Why are they still here: a look at employee retention amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Consultants leverage organizational change for successful adoption of agile methods in government organizations

PDF

Employee standardization for interchangeability across states: an improvement study

PDF

Gender diversity in optical communications and the role of professional societies: an evaluation study

PDF

Evaluating the problem of college students graduating into underemployment and unemployment

PDF

The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders

PDF

Examining the pandemic’s impact on remote worker wellness in community colleges: organizational lessons and strategies

Asset Metadata

Creator Wells, Jennifer Luanna Sacro (author)

Core Title Organizational resistance toward chief diversity officers: a qualitative study of small liberal arts colleges

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-08

Publication Date 08/06/2021

Defense Date 05/06/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag chief diversity officer,diversity,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational resistance,small liberal arts colleges

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Canny, Eric (committee chair), Kezar, Adrianna (committee member), Tambascia, Tracy Poon (committee member)

Creator Email jwells93@usc.edu,mx.jennwells@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15710714

Unique identifier UC15710714

Legacy Identifier etd-WellsJenni-10015

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Wells, Jennifer Luanna Sacro

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu